Author: Eduindex News

Visit us for more news at https://eduindex.org

UIDAI Under Fire For FIR Against Scribe

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which has filed an FIR against a journalist who exposed a breach in its Aadhaar database denied that it was trying to gag the media or whistleblowers. After facing a widespread criticism for filing a criminal complaint naming a journalist – Rachna Khaira of ‘The Tribune’ among others, the UIDAI said in a press release statement that, “It was duty bound to place all facts before the police and criminal proceedings have been initiated for the act of unauthorized access as it takes criminal violations seriously.” It triggered a political firestorm with the government saying it was committed to press freedom and the Opposition accusing it of ‘fascism’.  
                              To put things in perspective, the FIR was filed two days ago by a Deputy Director of UIDAI which is the parent body of the Aadhaar project against The Tribune’s Rachna Khaira for her report, which claimed that unknown agents had provided her access to Aadhaar’s database for just Rs 500. Should she be punished for exposing how anyone can exploit the loophole to gain access to Aadhaar’s database? Certainly not.
                                 Rather she should be commended and awarded for her exemplary work and courage to expose the wrongdoing and loopholes prevalent in the Aadhaar! American whistleblower Edward Snowden said the Indian journalist whose report on alleged Aadhaar data breach led to lodging of an FIR merits an award and not a government probe for the work. He also said the Indian government should reform its policy to safeguard privacy of its citizens. Absolutely right!
                                 Needless to say, Snowden tweeted on Twitter that, “The journalists exposing the #Aadhaar breach deserve an award, not an investigation. If the government were truly concerned for justice, they would be reforming the policies that destroyed the privacy of a billion Indians. Want to arrest those responsible? They are called @UIDAI.” He also remarked in his tweet that, “It is the natural tendency of government to desire perfect records of private lives.”
                                   It must also be revealed here that according to the police, on January 4, 2018, a complaint was received from Deputy Director UIDAI BM Patnaik stating that an input had been received through The Tribune newspaper, dated January 3, 2018, mentioning that they had purchased a service being offered for Rs 500 by anonymous sellers over ‘Whatsapp’. The service provided unrestricted access to details for any of more than one billion Aadhaar numbers including name, address, postal code, photo, phone number and email. What wrong has been done by Rachna in exposing this?
                                  Yet what did she get in return? The Press release by the Editors Guild of India noted as the Delhi Police Crime Branch confirmed filing of the FIR that the journalist was booked under the IPC Sections 419 (punishment for cheating under personation), 468 (forgery), 471 (using a forged document), Sections of the Information Technology Act and the Aadhaar Act. How fair is it to book a brave journalist under so many Sections? Most reprehensible!
                                        It is heartening to note that even the Editors Guild of India stated most explicitly that, “Instead of a direct attack on the freedom of press UIDAI should have ordered a thorough internal investigation into the alleged breach and made its findings public”. Very rightly said! But most unfortunately what UIDAI has done is just the reverse which can rightly be termed as “Shoot the messenger”! How can this be ever justified by anyone? No way!
                               It is also heartening to note that it is not just the Editors Guild of India and opposition parties who have condemned the action but even the local press clubs have not lagged behind in condemning this dastardly action of lodging an FIR against the brave journalist – Rachna Khaira. Expressing serious concern over the FIR, the Editors Guild of India said that, “It is clearly meant to browbeat a journalist whose investigation on the matter was of great public interest. It is unfair, unjustified and a direct attack on the freedom of the press.” Very rightly said!
                                       It is noteworthy that AICC spokesman Manish Tewari alleged that there have been systematic assaults on scribes and an atmosphere of fear and violence has been created against them. He asked the people to introspect whether they want a liberal, democratic and fascist country. Tewari alleged that media organizations have been systematically hounded and targeted and demanded that the FIR against “The Tribune” and the journalist be withdrawn if the government believes in the freedom of press.
                                    He said that the newspaper which warns the government that the privacy and the private data of thousands of citizens are at risk is rewarded with an FIR. He very rightly said that, “If this is not fascism, if this is not trying to muzzle dissent, if this is not gross abuse of state authority, then I am afraid, we possibly do not have a definition for it….” Nothing on earth can justify an FIR against the brave journalist Rachna Khaira who dared to take the system head on and expose the loopholes by exploiting which any person can obtain any information from UIDAI database!
                                           To be sure, the Editors Guild also rightly pointed out that, “Instead of penalising the reporter, UIDAI should have ordered a thorough internal investigation into the alleged breach and made its findings public.” Raj Chengappa who is President of Editors Guild of India rightly asserted that, “The Guild demands that the concerned Union Ministry intervene and have the cases against the reporter withdrawn, apart from conducting an impartial investigation into the matter.”
                              What is most amazing is that inspite of FIR being lodged against her, Rachna appeared calm and responded calmly by saying that, “I think I have earned this FIR. I am happy that at least the UIDAI has taken some action on my report and I really hope that along with the FIR, the Government of India will see what all breaches were there and take appropriate action.” On being asked whether she stood by her report, she responded confidently that, “Yes, of course, I stand by every word in it.” She refrained from commenting on the issue as she felt that it is not the right time.
                                    On being asked whether she had received any organizational support, Rachna said that, “I am very happy that not only the Chandigarh media, the Delhi media and even the international media have assured me of support. I am also happy that the report has been applauded by the big names in the media. The Tribune is providing all the legal assistance to me.” The Tribune’s Editor-in-Chief Harish Khare while reiterating his full solidarity with Rachna lamented that, “We regret very much that the authorities have misconceived an honest journalistic enterprise and have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against the whistle blower.” The Chandigarh Press Club (CPC) too while condemning the FIR lodged against Rachna lamented that, “Instead of taking action against people, who were involved in the data breach, the government agency preferred to lodge a case against the reporter, who exposed the loopholes in the system.” CPC Secretary General Barinder Singh Rawat also hit out saying that, “In an act of ‘shoot the messenger’, the UIDAI had filed a case against the reporter of The Tribune for an article on how anonymous users accessed Aadhaar details and sold it for a fee.”
                                  All said and done, Rachna Khaira merits award as Edward Snowden advocated and not probe! It is the job of the journalists to take the risk like Rachna to find out such fact and report them so that the authorities can act on them well in time.  All journalists not just young but even seniors should look forward to her as a shining beacon of hope always ready to face the grave challenges which comes in her journey while pursuing her journalism career and should always try hard to emulate what she has done! Why journalists alone? We all must always get inspired by what Rachna Khaira has done and should try our level best to always act like her – to always be solely concentrated in bringing out nothing but the real truth even if it exposes the high and the mighty which includes the Government in the Centre! Hats off to Rachna Khaira! We are all proud of you and for what you have done! Superb!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Supreme Court Facing Supreme Judicial Crisis Is Alarming

To begin with, what has happened on January 12, 2018 is completely unprecedented in the history of Supreme Court of independent India! Never before have the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court ventilated their grievances against the Chief Justice so openly in front of the media! Transcending judicial protocol which prohibits the sitting Judges from interacting with the media, all these 4 Justices accused Chief Justice Dipak Misra of assigning cases of “far-reaching consequences to the nation” to junior hand-picked Judges against the time-tested convention, practice and tradition of the court!
                                          Truly speaking, this is certainly a very serious charge and the CJI Dipak Misra would also now certainly deliberate on it and be more careful from now onwards! Why can’t well defined rules be made in this direction so that there is no confusion of any sort regarding picking of Judges for hearing sensitive cases? It can certainly be done if judiciary resolves firmly to do so!  
                                       It cannot be denied that all these 4 Judges – Justices Ranjan Gogoi who is next in line to replace Dipak Misra who is the present Chief Justice of India, Jasti Chelameswar who is senior to Gogoi but will retire early on June 22, 2018, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph who make the current Supreme Court collegium are man of strong character and carry great reputation with them of always sticking to prescribed norms! I have never heard anything against any of these 4 Judges which may raise a question mark on their impeccable integrity! So what they say has to be taken most seriously.
                                   It must be brought out here that the seven-page letter which was addressed to the CJI and circulated at the press meet minced no words in stating that certain Supreme Court Judges arrogate to themselves the “authority to deal with and pronounce upon” cases which ought to be heard by other appropriate Benches. The letter is of October 2017 origin which implies it was written about three months back. Justice Chelameswar while speaking for the four said they had collectively tried to persuade the Chief Justice to take remedial measures but their efforts failed.
                                         To be sure, Justice Chelameswar while speaking for the four said they had collectively tried to persuade the Chief Justice to take remedial measure but their efforts failed. With a heavy heart, the Judges said that, “With the independence of the judiciary and the future of democracy at stake, they had no other choice but communicate to the nation to please take care of this institution.” Justice Chelameswar also sought to make it clear that, “They decided to act now because they did not want any wise men to say 20 years later that Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph sold their souls and did not take care of the interests of this illustrious institution.”
                                     It cannot be lightly dismissed that Justice Ranjan Gogoi has highly risked his chances of becoming the next Chief Justice by coming out in the open to air his differences with Chief Justice Dipak Misra! The other Judges also have taken a great risk by daring to come out in the open. They have acted as per their conscience and it needs real great guts to do so! How many of Judges in the Supreme Court have acted like them in the past? The answer is a big “none”!  
                                     Going forward, Justice Chelameswar also lamented that, “The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order. Many things undesirable have happened in the last few months. As seniormost judges of the court and of this country, we hold a responsibility to the institution and to the nation.” He also quipped that, “The convention of the court demands that important cases of public interest or sensitive matters should be first heard by the Chief Justice of India. If the CJI is not willing for some reason to hear the case, then it should be assigned to the next senior-most judge in the Supreme Court. Instead of that, such cases have been assigned to certain Benches and eventually given a quiet burial.” This is a very serious charge!
                                           Justice Chelameswar went on to further add that, “Unless the institution is preserved and allowed to maintain its dignity, democracy will not survive. The hallmark of a good democracy are independent and impartial judges.” Who can dispute or deny this? Why can’t their invaluable suggestions be implemented after taking into board the CJI Dipak Misra along with other Judges of the Supreme Court?
                                       Why drag on with the old deadwood? Why can’t fresh changes be made in the functioning of the highest court of India? Why do we forget that even judges are not infallible?   
                                          He also pulled back no punches in recounting that the trigger for the press conference was a meeting they held with the Chief Justice on the morning of January 12 regarding the assignment of a petition, seeking an independent probe into the mysterious death of CBI Judge BH Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case to a particular Bench!
                                Be it noted, they had expressed their reservations to the CJI about the assignation of the Loya case. But the CJI refused to budge. They had then informed him about their intention to go public. Though Justice Chelameswar did not name the Loya petition, Justice Gogoi, who is scheduled to take over as Chief Justice of India after Dipak Misra retires on October 2 in 2018, spoke up to clear the air by saying that the petition is indeed regarding Judge Loya’s death. He said: “Yes, yes. It was the Loya case.”
                                  Justice Gogoi further added that, “It is the discharge of our debt to the nation that brought us here. We have discharged our debt to the nation by saying what is what.” The revelation at the press conference came a couple of hours after a Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra who is a very junior Judge in Supreme Court heard the Loya petition. One has to concede here that a Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra termed the alleged mysterious death of CBI Judge BH Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case as a “serious matter” and asked the Maharashtra government to respond by January 15.
                                        It also said the case should be heard bi-parte rather than ex-parte while asking the Maharashtra government to file the Judge’s autopsy report. It decided to hear the case despite protests from the Bombay Lawyers Association, represented by senior advocate Dushyant Dave that it has already field an identical case and it is pending before the Bombay High Court. The Apex Court is hearing petitions filed by Maharashtra based journalist BR Lone for a probe into Loya’s death on December 1, 2014.
                                        Another petition has also been filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala on the same issue. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter. The issue embroiled into a major spotlight in November 2017 after media reports quoting his sister fuelled suspicions about the circumstances surrounding his death and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. Poonawala in his lea said the circumstances of the death of the Judge were “questionable, mysterious and contradicting”. Even Caravan magazine had covered it in detail some time back.   
                                       It must be revealed here that the 4 Judges said the letter written in October 2017 did not mend matters. Their efforts to convince the Chief Justice to take corrective measures had failed thus forcing them to go public. The letter written by the 4 Judges reveals their utter anguish at the recent judicial orders and an erosion in the judicial independence of the court. The letter said the Chief Justice’s authority, as the master of the roster to decide which Bench should decide which case, did not make him a “superior authority”.
                       Furthermore, the letter also stated that, “The Chief Justice is only the first among equals – nothing more or nothing less”. Yet, they said, “there have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the Chief Justices of this court selectively to the Benches of their preference without any rational basis for such assignment.”  
                               
                                      Truth be told, the letter which the Supreme Court’s four seniormost Judges have made public has emphasized the row between the Apex Court and the government over finalizing the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). The four Judges expressed displeasure over delays in finalizing the MoP and observed that the government’s “silence” on the matter meant it had been accepted. The MoP lays down the procedure to be followed in appointment of Judges in the higher judiciary and while it came into existence in 1993, plans to revise the existing MoP have been stalled after differences between the Supreme Court and the government came out in the open.
                               It cannot be lost on us that the MoP was laid down on the directions of the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case of 1993 (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another versus Union of India), wherein a nine-Judge Constitution Bench devised the Collegium system of appointments. The letter observed that the MoP was finalized and sent by the “then Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to the government of India in March 2017”. The letter stated that, “The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalized by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government of India on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association (Supra)”.
                                    It is noteworthy that the letter also mentions a Supreme Court order dated October 27, 2017. The letter mentions that, “We deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the Order dated 27th October, 2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalizing the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest.”
                               To recapitulate, it was on October 27, while hearing a petition that was filed by lawyer RP Luthra, who had challenged the appointments made to the higher judiciary in the absence of the revised MoP that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit had issued notice to the Centre and directed the presence of Attorney General KK Venugopal. The development came as a surprise as it meant clearly that the Supreme Court had taken up the matter, which till then was being dealt with on the administrative side, on the judicial side.
                              To put things in perspective, all these 4 Justices have said in their letter that, “We need to consider the prayer that there should be no further delay in finalisation of MoP in larger public interest. Even though no time limit was fixed by this court for finalisation of the MoP, the issue cannot linger on for indefinite period.” Who can deny that 10 High Courts in India are without proper Chief Justice and have only acting Chief Justice? Who can deny that there will be many vacancies in Supreme Court as many Judges are about to retire this year? Who can deny that there are more than 470 vacancies in the strength of High Court Judges? Who can deny that there are nearly 6000 vacancies in the strength of Judges in lower courts? Why are these vacancies not being filled? Why is Centre neglecting judiciary?
                                           Why is Centre not creating more high court benches as recommended by 230th  report of Law Commission of India? Why Nehru had the guts to create a bench just about 150 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow 70 years back in 1948 but no PM till now 70 years later had the courage to set up a bench anywhere in any part of UP even though Union Minister like Satyapal Singh demand 5 benches and Rajinder Aggarwal who is BJP MP from Meerut demands benches at Meerut, Agra and Gorakhpur and so also other MPs from West UP keep demanding benches regularly only to be ignored time and again?
                                    All said and done, this open rift in the Supreme Court has sent shockwaves throughout the nation. Former CJI RM Lodha says the controversy could have been avoided but doesn’t fault the judges conscience call. He says during his term, he strictly went by seniority while assigning cases to avoid allegations of arbitrariness. This “dangerous and discretionary bomb” must be defused by ending all discretion vested in CJI in this behalf by making written rules of going strictly by seniority as former CJI Lodha very rightly and strongly advocates!
                                       KTS Tulsi who is an eminent senior lawyer said that, “I am sure they (4 judges) have exhausted all other remedies. One could see pain on their faces while they were speaking. The whole matter is with respect to judicial propriety.” Justice RS Sodhi however feels that, “By press conference, are you going to hold a referendum and ask people what is right and wrong?” Prashant Bhushan defends them saying that, “Somebody had to confront the situation, where the CJi is blatantly misusing his powers. Hence the unprecedented step.”
                            Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice (retd) Mukul Mudgal said that, “The four senior-most judges must have had compelling reasons to go public and they are not public hungry judges”. Subramanian Swamy who is a lawyer as also BJP MP in Rajya Sabha says that, “We cannot criticize them (the four judges). They are men of great integrity…We must respect them.” Salman Kurshid who is an eminent Supreme Court lawyer too lamented that, “I feel agony that the highest court of the land should come under such stress that forces judges to address the media.”
                                 Former Supreme Court Judge KT Thomas said that, “It should not become a precedent. Sitting Supreme Court Judges interacting with the media especially concerning matters relating to administrative, business and judgment side of the top court have never happened before. The image of the institution will not suffer from today’s event. The Supreme Court is far above all these.” Former CJI TS Thakur felt that this should have been sorted out within the institution instead of bringing them out in public. He asked that, “How did a press conference by four senior judges of the Supreme Court help resolve their discontent against the Chief Justice of India? It does not help anybody, particularly the institution if someone was to bring it out in the open. Roster issues are also matters which can be sorted out.”
                                    Senior lawyer Rebecca John said it must have been the last resort available to the four judges. Attorney General KK Venugopal said that, “What has happened today could have been avoided. The judges will now have to act like statesmen and ensure that the divisiveness is wholly neutralized and total harmony and mutual understanding prevail in future. This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion.”On a concluding note, the only silver lining out of this entire supreme judicial crisis in the highest court of India which is certainly most alarming is that now many are realizing rightly that fixed rules must be made clearly and very urgently stipulating  that only seniormost Judges will hear sensitive cases and all discretionary power available right now with the Chief Justice should be immediately abolished! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?

Let me begin right at the very beginning by first and foremost pointing out very explicitly that secrecy and non-disclosure of names of donors can never usher in transparency no matter how tall claims the government may make repeatedly through its eminent and senior leaders. Why should there be any secrecy at all? Why can’t there be full and fair disclosure of names of all donors who donate to political parties?
                                     Why this hush-hush secrecy of not disclosing names of donors on one pretext or the other? Why is Centre not making any serious effort to make sure that nothing is hidden by politicians and that everything is disclosed by them relating to payment which they receive from different sources? Why is Centre offering just lame excuses for not disclosing the names of all the donors who donate generously to political parties?    
                                              Why under this electoral bond scheme the donor’s identity won’t be revealed to the beneficiaries? What is there for politicians to hide? Why Centre wants full transparency from people but not from politicians? Why can’t politicians too reveal every money which they get from different sources for fighting elections just like any other common person? Why special exemptions for political parties and politicians? Do they deserve this?      
                                  Why government is trying to project this electoral bond as most viable method on cleaning up poll funding without making the names of donors public? Why on one hand Arun Jaitley claims that the present system ensures unclean money coming from unidentifiable sources and most political groups seem fairly satisfied with the arrangement and would not mind this status-quo to continue but on the other hand makes sure that even under the electoral bonding method the names of donors are not made public? What sort of transparency is this?
                               Why on one hand Arun Jaitley claims that the effort, therefore, is to run down any alternative system which is devised to cleanse up the political funding mechanism but on the other hand throws up another opaque system which protects the identity of the donors from being made public? How can any sane person support another opaque system with just few minor changes? Why can’t there be full transparency with nothing hidden from the public?      
                            It is noteworthy that the government on January 2 had notified electoral bonds as a new instrument for donations to political parties. Arun Jaitley has himself said that, “The government is willing to consider all suggestions to further strengthen the cleansing of political funding in India. It has to be borne in mind that impractical suggestions will not improve the cash-dominated system.” Who can be better equipped than Arun Jaitley himself who has been a senior lawyer of Supreme Court and also Union Law Minister to understand best that not disclosing the names of donors will only make sure that even those involved in wrong activities too can donate money without their name being made in public? How can this be justified under any circumstances?
                                  Truth be told, under the new system the prospective donors will be required to buy interest-free electoral bonds of designated denominations which they will forward to the parties of their choice. The donors’ identity won’t be revealed to beneficiaries. Jaitley says this is needed to discourage cash donations. He does not say why and how. In any case, it’s far from certain why the present system of cash donations will cease with the advent of electoral bonds as the role of cash in the electoral battle will continue to remain as dominant as before if not more! Who can dispute or deny this?
                                       It must also be revealed here that the life of the electoral bond would be only 15 days. A bond can only be encashed in a pre-declared account of a political party. Every political party in its returns will have to disclose the amount of donations it has received through electoral bonds to the Election Commission. The entire transactions would be through banking instruments. Jaitley reveals that as against a total non-transparency in the present system of cash donations where the donor, the done, the quantum of donations and the nature of expenditure are all undisclosed, some element of transparency would be introduced in as much as all donors declare in their accounts the amount of bonds that they have purchased and all parties declare the quantum of bonds that they have received.
                              To be sure, Jaitley also reveals that, “How much each donor has distributed to a political party would be known only to the donor. This is necessary because once this disclosure is made, past experience has shown, donors would not find the scheme attractive and would go back to the less desirable option of donating by cash. In fact the choice has now to be consciously made between the existing system of substantial cash donations which involves total unclean money and is non-transparent and the new scheme which gives the option to the donors to donate through entirely a transparent method of cheque, online transaction or through electoral bonds. While all three methods involve clean money, the first two are totally transparent and the electoral bonds scheme is a substantial improvement in transparency over the present system of no transparency.” Jaitley has a valid point. But even this method is not perfect.   
                                  I have absolutely no hesitation in concluding that a wrong is a wrong whether it is a smaller or a bigger wrong. The present  system of electoral bonds may be definitely a better alternative than the earlier one but even this too has many shortcomings. These shortcomings too needs to be removed and the system of electoral funding must be made totally transparent with no room for secrecy of any kind!
                                       Jaitley has rightly said in a Face book post that India has not been able to evolve a transparent political funding system, despite being the largest democracy in the world. But now his government has been in power since the last four years. So he cannot offer any excuses for India not having been able to evolve a transparent political funding system. It is the bounden duty of his government to make sure that the system of poll funding is made totally transparent and there is no room for secrecy of any kind in any form which will only serve to further enhance the reputation of his government in the Centre!
                                 According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), almost 70 percent of the Rs 113 billion of party funding received over an 11-year period came from unknown sources. What makes matters even more worse is that the Centre in 2016 retrospectively amended the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) to redefine the status of London-headquartered multinational Vedants, which had contributed to the BJP and the Congress party after the Delhi High Court held that both parties – BJP and Congress were guilty of violating FCRA rules. Neither party has been made to penalize for this blatant violation of all rules!
                                      How can this be ever justified? Who can justify the decision to not disclose the names of donors under the electoral bonds scheme which will only serve to promote the dangerous trend of opacity in political funding? How can this be denied that most private donors prefer anonymity for fear of reprisals from political parties and they would still prefer to continue with cash donations under the Rs 2000 slab as is enumerated under Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act as also via electoral trusts as it is here that anonymity is better maintained?   
                                  Why Centre is just aiming to reduce the big role that unaccounted cash has in the electoral process of electing candidates? Why Centre does not care to do more to address the need to have public accountability of sources of political funding? Why Centre has drawn a Lakshman Rekha that this naming of donors can never be done?
                                   Why Centre is not ready to bring in more transparency rather is seen to be eschewing transparency in this new method of electoral bonding? Why all the great legal luminaries in the Cabinet of Centre have failed thoroughly to work out on this in a satisfactory manner? Why is Arun Jaitley expecting the people to do the homework on this score?
                                       He himself is such a great legal luminary! Why can’t he work out himself a fair and transparent system of electoral funding? Why can’t a roadmap be put forward by Centre with clear timelines and with the ultimate aim of ushering in complete transparency in the system of political funding?
                                Why Centre fails to appreciate that just introducing electoral bonds will not usher in transparency in the electoral system unless accompanied by other corollary measures? Why there is no clarity right now on how much a party or a candidate spends in an election and from where all they get funding for fighting  their elections? Why there is no mechanism to monitor the spending of money by parties and candidates during elections?
                                    Why parties are not asked to show their source of funding which are dubious in many cases? Why no strict penalty is imposed against any political party who is found to have acquired huge money from “unexplained sources”? Why political parties are exempted from disclosing the name of donors received from foreign countries?  Unless this is done, all other steps will prove to be “an exercise in futility”! Also, foreign countries by donating lavishly can subjugate our country indirectly and remote control them through their representatives in Delhi! Who can deny this possibility can never happen under any circumstances?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

No Need To Play National Anthem In Cinemas: SC

Let me start penning my thoughts by first and foremost pointing out that in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on January 9, 2018 said that cinema halls across India no longer needed to play the national anthem before film screenings thus reversing an order passed over a year ago. The ruling comes just a day after the Centre asked for “status quo ante” – or a return to the situation before the court had passed its November 2016 order saying that it would frame fresh ruleswithin six months. Now cinema halls will not be obligated to play the national anthem before the screening of film begins and it would be a purely voluntary exercise.
                                        I too fully endorse this viewpoint. Why wear patriotism on your sleeves? Senior and eminent advocate of Supreme Court Rajeev Dhavan rightly said that, “The anthem had a ceremonial significance and a “sacred element” which should not be trivialized by playing it four times a day in cinemas”. What is the point of doing all this useless showoff when our politicians don’t have the guts to terminate Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan even after more than 22 years having conferred it way back in 1996 and that too unilaterally? Kuwait has not lost a single soldier at hands of Pakistani army or terrorists still it has ordered all Pakistan is to leave Kuwait and has severed all relations with it as they felt that Pakistanis are a threat to their security! Can Indian politicians ever dare to do so?
                                          What is the point of doing this useless showoff when more than our lakh soldiers have been killed directly by cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan and still our leaders don’t have the guts to do what Rajeev Chandrashekhar who is independent Rajya Sabha MP from Bangalore demanded that Pakistan should be declared a “terror sponsor country” and Maulana Mehmood Madani of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Himd demanded that Pakistan be labelled as “Aatankistan” rather enjoy paying uncalled trips to Pakistan and some even castigate their own leaders and PM from Pakistan? What is the point of doing this useless showoff when our leaders shamelessly invite Pakistani invader Gen Pervez Musharraf within 2 to 3 months of Kargil war masterminded by him in which we lost officially more than 600 soldiers and he himself conceded that he had entered 15-16 km inside Indian territory just one night before Kargil war to motivate his soldiers to slaughter our soldiers like animals and we saw how Captain Saurav Kalia and 5 soldiers of 4 Jat Regiment were after being captured alive tortured continuously for more than 20 days and were blinded with hot iron rods, beaten mercilessly and maimed and private parts were cut  and put in the mouth and then dead body was handed over to India and not just this he threatened himself to nuke India if Indian soldiers dared to step even one step inside their territory as he feels Pakistan alone has the unfettered right to invade still he was given a red carpet welcome and leaders of all major parties felt extremely overjoyed to have company with him while having breakfast, lunch and dinner? Not just this he even awarded dreaded Al Qaeda terror leader Iliyas Kashmiri who was earlier in Pakistani Army with one lakh rupees as cash prize for presenting him a severed head of an Indian soldier Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar on 27 February 2000 as reported in all English dailies and promised to always keep it with him as a “fond memory” and Pakistani media proudly published Iliyasi carrying head of Bhausaheb?
                                    Not just this he terms dreaded terror leaders like Osama Bin Laden, Hafiz Saeed and Syed Salaluddin as “Osama to hero hain ji hero. Hafiz Saeed to hero hain ji hero. Bharat ke liye yeh aatankwadi hain paar Pakistan ke liye to yeh hero hain ji hero bilkul aasli freedom fighter hain ji”! Can there be anyone more shameless than us that we still forgot everything and accorded him VVIP treatment? Commonwealth countries had expelled Pakistan but India got them readmitted!
                                            Don’t our politicians still shamelessly sing national anthem? Does it serve any purpose other than fooling illiterate people? Don’t our politicians always keep an eye on votebank politics and for preserving their votebank are ready to exploit any issue like Ram temple and Babri Masjid and due to this we have seen how riots broke out in 1993 and how thousands lost their lives in riots, bomb blasts etc?          
                                               What is the point of doing this useless showoff when our politicians don’t have the courage to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act under which any person amassing crores of rupees is just jailed for a few years or may be even one year and pay just a few lakh rupees as fine and then again indulge in the same old money minting tactic of corruption? What is the point of doing this useless showoff when corrupt people openly mock at our laws and so do killers and other criminals and even after committing worst crimes are able to play with the system because of cases pending for many decades due to which they die a natural death or escape punishment because of many loopholes in our laws and even if convicted come out within few years from jail and there too the rich and powerful are able to manipulate all sorts of comforts by bribing those who are corrupt?
                                            To be sure, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said that, “The interim order passed on November 30, 2016 is modified that playing of national anthem prior to screening of a film is not mandatory or directory”. Before the 2016 ruling, some state governments which includes Maharashtra had made it mandatory for the national anthem to be played in theatres across the state. Legal experts said that any such executive order by states would still stand. Those executive orders shall not be affected by this landmark judgment.
                                        It is noteworthy that the court specified that if the anthem is played in theatres, moviegoers will have to stand in a show of respect, but said that differently abled people would be exempt. The exemption granted to the disabled persons “shall remain in force on all occasions”. The Bench while disposing of a PIL which had asked to specify what would constitute disrespect and abuse of national anthem said that, “Citizens and people living in India are bound to show respect”. The court said that the Prevention of Insult of National Honour Act 1971 make it “clear as crystal that no one can be intentionally prevented from singing or cause disturbance in assembly by singing the anthem.” The Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act 1971 states that, “Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Jana Gana Mana or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. The court said that the offenders would be penalized.    
                                    Truth be told, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra clarified that it is not mandatory to play the anthem before screenings. The court left the choice of whether to play the anthem or not to the discretion of individual cinema hall owners. However, if the anthem was played, patrons were bound to stand up in respect.
                                      To put things in perspective, the court took note of its judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel versus State of Kerala which dealt with three children belonging to the Jehovah Witnesses sect who refused to sing the anthem in the school assembly though they stood up in respect, to drive home the point that standing up was a sign of “proper respect” to the anthem. “Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung,” the Bench quoted Justice O Chinappa Reddy’s words in the verdict.
                                    What cannot be missed out here is that the modification will be in place till the Union government takes a final decision on the recommendations of an inter-ministerial Committee on the occasions, circumstances and events for the solemn rendering of the national anthem. The Committee will examine whether any amendment is necessary to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to expand or specify the meaning of ‘respect’ to the national anthem. The Committee which was set up on December 5, 2017, will submit its reportin six months.
                                    It must be add here that the Union Home Ministry has appointed a 12-member inter-ministerial Committee led by Additional Secretary BR Sharma which would take a final call on the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls and public places. It will recommend changes, if needed, in the existing laws. The first meeting of the Committee which was set up on December 5 2017 and which will have officers of the rank of Joint Secretary from 11 Ministries and departments of the Union government will be held on January 19. It will submit its report within six months.
                                       Let me hasten to add here that the decision came after the Supreme Court in October 2017 said “the people cannot be forced to carry patriotism on their sleeves” and it could not be assumed that if a person did not stand up for the national anthem, he or she was “less patriotic”. Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted that the Committee would conduct a comprehensive study of the issue. The government began the hearing by referring to its latest affidavit, suggesting that the court modify its November 30, 2016 order and give cinema hall owners discretion till the Committee took a final decision.  
                                       Going forward, the Supreme Court accepted the Centre’s submission that an inter-ministerial Committee constituted onDecember 5 was looking into all aspects relating to the playing and singing of the national anthem and let the government have a final say. Supreme Court had justified its November 2016 order making it mandatory to play the national anthem in cinema halls saying it was “for the love of the motherland”. It had also said that the national flag be displayed on the screen while the anthem was playing.
                                       It may be recalled here that Justice Dipak Misra before he became the CJI, headed the Bench that issued the order which had been backed by the government. But the order came in for criticism from the court in October 2017 when Justice DY Chandrachud very rightly asked if people needed to stand up to prove their patriotism. I fully agree with Justice Chandrachud and ask those who keep making it a prestigious issue that why inspite of prominent leaders like Shashi Tharoor, Subrahmanium Swamy and many others that MFN status for Pakistan must be revoked, all Pakistanis must be ordered to leave India just like Kuwait has done and Pakistan be declared a “Terroristan” as India led by Sushma Swaraj who is External Affairs Minister addressed it in UN but still officially is not ready to take any hard action against Pakistan where it hurts them most even though its closest ally US has frozen all aid to Pakistan?
                                    Leaders have just no convincing answer except evading it or giving lame excuses! Endless cries of families of slain soldiers and innocents have no effect at all on our heartless politicians surrounded by many black cat commandos for their security 24 hours who are not ready to withdraw MFN status to Pakistan under any circumstances! Instead they foolishly resort to senseless slogans like “Bharat mein rahane hain to Vande Mataram kehana hain, Bharat mein rahane hain to rashtra gaan gaana hain. Jinhe nahin gaana hain who jain Pakistan”!
                                        It is a different matter that no party including BJP has the guts and courage to make a law by which those who wave Pakistani flags and burn our national flags and openly chant anti-Indian slogans which burns even moderates like me with fury are made to vacate India and go to Pakistan or any other country of their choice! To sing or not to sing anything should be best left to the concerned individual himself/herself and politicians must instead concentrate on appointing more Judges, more high court benches in big states like UP where there is just one bench established by Jawaharlal Nehru way back in 1948 but since then no leader till now in 2018 seventy years later is ready to set up even one more bench here anywhere and people of remote areas like those in West UP and Bundelkhand and Gorakhpur are compelled to travel more than 800 to 900 km on an average all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench anywhere else in such as big state and another lawless state Bihar has not even one bench!
                                           UP has maximum pending cases and still it has least benches whereas peaceful states like Karnataka, Assam and Maharashtra have 3, 4 and 3 benches each! MPs from West UP like Rajinder Aggarwal from Meerut earnestly keep demanding benches at Meerut, Agra and Gorakhpur and Satyapal Singh who was just made Union Minister and is MP from Baghpat also had demanded benches at Meerut, Agra, Gorakhpur, Jhansi and Varanasi which is PM constituency but Centre is not ready to create even one more bench anywhere just like predecessor Congress! To act earnestly and sincerely always so that people gains most is the best way to be nationalistic. Just like if a bench is created in West UP more than 9 crore people will benefit and litigants would not be compelled to travel many times without reservation whole night all the way to Allahabad to get justice. Not tolerating nonsense from any foreign country is the best  way to show nationalism! But how much we keep tolerating cross border terrorism is known worldwide and it requires no elaboration!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

The Proposed Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill

To begin with, a lot of fire and storm has been kicked by the proposed Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill even before it has been passed by Parliament leave alone being assented by President. There is a widespread perception that if a bank fails everyone will have to sacrifice and this includes the depositors and the part of the money which is not insured. It is argued that this Bill can’t be avoided as it is part of the G20 (Group of 20 countries) FSB (Financial Stability Board) requirement. We all know that India is a member of the FSB and G20. As a member, India had accepted that it would work out a resolution package. The whole idea of this proposed Bill is that if at any point of time a bank fails then how can they be saved?
                                         To put it bluntly, this proposed Bill envisages that all the creditors will have to be part of the bail-in provision and depositors are also creditors. The bail-in provision in this proposed Bill is expected to eliminate haircut. If the bank survives, then the depositors including the non-insured deposits will get back the money. If it fails then they are bound to lose the money! This is why there is so much of hue and cry over it! Mamata Banerjee who is the Chief Minister of Bengal said that, “It is a travesty that the Centre as an owner of the nationalized banks is now trying to replenish the eroded capital of banks by forcibly taking away the small depositors savings instead of facing the crisis in the banking.”
                                     It must be brought out here that the FRDI Bill 2017 was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 10 August following which it was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Committee has been asked to submit its report to the Parliament by the last date of the Budget session in 2018 in the upcoming winter session of Parliament which started on December 15 after consulting all the concerned stakeholders. The Bill has been facing unrelenting criticism from several quarters for some of its provisions and this includes the “bail-in clause that reportedly suggests that depositor money could be used by failing financial institutions to stay afloat.
                                    Be it noted, this bail-in clause can be used by the bank to simply refuse repayment of a customer’s money and instead issue securities such as preference shares. Its purpose is to provide capital to absorb the losses of a bank to ensure its survival. Here survivor does not mean safety of depositors bank but restoration of capital of the bank. This must be set right and depositors interests must be accorded the top priority always!
                               It also must be brought out here that some of the provisions of the proposed FRDI Bill is facing so much of vehement opposition because it provides for people’s money to be used to bail out banks that made bad lending decisions! Why should people suffer interminably because of wrong decisions made by bank lenders? Why should those bank lenders not be punished for their negligence or willful deceit?
                                        It is noteworthy that the Government through its Finance Ministry has been quick to clarify that, “The provisions contained in the FRDI Bill, as introduced in the Parliament, do not modify present protections to the depositors adversely at all. They provide additional protections to the depositors in a more transparent manner.” The Government also said that, “The FRDI Bill will strengthen the system by adding a comprehensive resolution regime that will help ensure that, in the rare event of failure of a financial service provider, there is a system of quick, orderly and efficient resolution… The FRDI Bill is far more depositor-friendly than many other jurisdictions, which provide fort statutory bail-in, where consent of creditors/depositors is not required for bail-in.”
                                      Let me hasten to add here that the government’s statement reiterated its commitment to support banks. It said that, “The FRDI Bill does not propose in any way to limit the scope of powers for the government to extend financing and resolution support to banks, including public sector banks. Government’s implicit guarantee for public sector banks remains unaffected.” Banks are bound to feel happy.
                                    Truth be told, the Bill empowers Resolution Corporation which has been envisaged as an oversight body to monitor the failure of financial resolutions and to limit the fallout of the failures of a systemically important financial institution on the overall sector – to cancel the liability of a failing bank or convert the nature of the liability. It is a significant omission that no specific deposit insurance amount is prescribed and this has been also opposed by many stakeholders. Presently, we see that all deposits up to Rs 1 lakh are protected under the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act 1961 that is sought to be repealed by this proposed Bill. There are many other glaring loopholes.  
                                     To be sure, Mamta Pathania who is co-project Director at National Consumer Helpline and faculty member at the Indian Institute of Public Administration too voices her apprehensions by saying that, “The provisions of the Bill have been creating a lot of confusion in the minds of the people. Ultimately, bank deposits are considered the safest investment option by any investor.” What is equally important if not more is that even political parties like the Congress and various trade unions have also characterized the provision as anti-people and anti-poor and have also apprehended that ultimately it is small depositors who will have to pay the price for bad lending choices of banks, especially loans given to big corporates. This is really most reprehensible. Why should common man pay for misdeeds of big corporates?  
                                   One has to concede here with grace that the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has himself acknowledged that “a lot of corrections could still take place”. No doubt, after the 2008 global financial crisis, governments all over the world have been forced to bring in laws to resolve failure of financial institutions and not to depend on public-funded bailouts. In India too, a new legal framework was felt as imperative to prevent such failures of financial institutions especially banks which explains why we see this proposed FRDI Bill being worked out by Government!
                                According to the Ministry of Finance, there is presently no comprehensive and integrated legal framework for resolution, including “liquidation of financial firms in India”. The Ministry said that current resolution instruments available under respective legislations are “limited, and so is guidance on the process leading up to the resolution”. It said in a statement on January 2 that, “The current resolution regime is especially inappropriate for private sector financial firms in the light of significant expansion of private financial firms and many of these acquiring systemically important status in India.”  
                            As it turned out, the Finance Ministry made it a point to highlight that, “The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has introduced in the country a comprehensive resolution regime for mainly non-financial firms, but such a regime is not available in the country for financial firms.” It also reiterated that the FRDI Bill proposes to establish a “Resolution Corporation” (RC) and a comprehensive regime to enable timely and orderly resolution of a failing financial firm. It also sought to make it clear that, “It provides for detecting incipient insolvencies in financial firms by introducing a five-stage health classification of financial firms and stepping in to appropriately nurse a financial firm at the stage when its health becomes weak and it is classified in the category of material risk to viability.” The five-stage categories are primarily modelled on their risk of failures: low, moderate, material, imminent and critical risk to viability. If it is in the critical stage risk category then the RC has various ways in which it can resolve it which includes taking over the administration of the firm on the day on which is classified as critical.       
                                     Truly speaking, the Finance Ministry also made it a point to reveal that, “FRDI Bill also introduces a menu of resolution tools, including transfer of whole or parts of the assets and liabilities of a financial firm to another person, acquisition, merger or amalgamation, bridge service provider and bail-in and mandates recovery and resolution planning obligations to enable careful monitoring of risk to viability of a financial firm”. The Resolution Corporation will insure bank deposits and the insured limit will be set in consultation with the RBI.  
                                  To put things in perspective, on the “bail-in” provision of FRDI Bill, the Ministry said that it has only been proposed as one of the tools to be used in the event a financial firm is sought to be sustained by resolution. The statement of Finance Ministry explained that, “Bail-in amounts to liabilities holders bearing a part of the cost of resolution by reduction in their claims. Bail-in is only one of many resolution tools in the FRDI Bill; others are acquisition, merger and bridge service provider, and is to be used either singly or in combination with other tools.” It was also added that, “Bail in provision may not be required to be used in case of any specific resolution. Most certainly, it will not be used in case of a public sector bank as such a contingency is not likely to arise.”
                                        It was reiterated by the Finance Ministry that the FRDI Bill does not prohibit the central government from extending support to banks, including PSU banks. It also reaffirmed that, “Government’s implicit guarantee for solvency of public sector banks remains unaffected as the government remains committed to adequately capitalize the public sector banks and improve their financial health. The government is committed to protecting the existing protection to depositors and providing additional protection to them.”  
                                       Needless to say, the moment this FRDI Bill will be made a law, India would also finally have a law to swiftly address the issue of insolvency of companies in the manufacturing sector. As stated earlier, this Bill aims primarily at finding and finalizing a resolution plan to get a troubled company back on track, or, in the event of a complete failure, to ensure a quick winding up. The plan is to have a similar law for firms in the financial sector so that if a bank, a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC), an insurance company, a pension fund or a mutual fund run by an asset management company, fails, a quick solution is available to either sell that firm, merge it with another firm or close it down with the least disruption to the system, to the economy and to investors and to other stakeholders.
                               This is to be done through a new entity termed as a Financial Resolution Corporation which is envisaged as an agency that will classify firms according to the risks they pose, carry out inspections and at a later stage take over control where necessary. This is what was recommended by the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission headed by Justice BN Srikrishna. This is exactly what is being sought to be implemented now!  
                                      All said and done, the proposed Bill is yet to take its final shape. It has to incorporate valuable suggestions it gets from the Joint Parliamentary Committee. Also Arun Jaitley said that, “The Cabinet will place the recommendations in the public domain and ask for feedback. So I think a lot of corrections will take place.” So let us hope fervently that the glaring drawbacks in the proposed Bill will be weeded out before it is finally made into a law and the depositors interests will not be compromised under any circumstances!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Chavan Gets Bombay High Court Relief In Adarsh Scam

To begin with, in a big reprieve for the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Congress leader Ashok Chavan who was the Chief Minister between December 2008 and November 2010 and currently the President of the Maharashtra unit of the Congress in the Adarsh housing society case, the Bombay High Court has on December 22, 2017 set aside the sanction granted by the Maharashtra Governor to prosecute him for his role in it. A Bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Sadhana Jadhav of Bombay High Court while quashing and setting aside the sanction order said that the order passed by the Maharashtra Governor granting sanction to prosecute Ashok Chavan in the Adarsh housing society scam “cannot be sustained” since it was not based on any fresh material produced by the CBI that could be considered as plausible evidence by courts during trial.   
                                   To put things in perspective, the Bombay High Court was hearing a petition filed by Ashok Chavan challenging the decision of Maharashtra Governor C Vidyasagar Rao granting sanction to the CBI to prosecute him in the scam. The Bench had earlier made Rao a respondent in the matter. This is the second major relief for the Congress in recent times. On December 22, a Special CBI Court acquitted all accused, including former telecom minister A Raja in Congress led UPA regime, in the 2G spectrum allocation case.
                                          It must be revealed here that the CBI in its FIR filed on January 2011 had named former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan as accused 13 in the Adarsh society case. According to the FIR, Chavan got involved in a criminal conspiracy when he was the Revenue Minister in 2000. His proposal that civilians be made members of the society was approved though his ulterior motive was to reportedly allow his relatives to secure flats in the society. The flats in the society were meant for widows of Kargil war. The FIR stated that RC Thakur, Brigadier Madan Mohan Wanchu and Kanhaiyalal Gidwani were also involved in the plot.
                                           It must be also revealed here that the CBI said that after the induction of civil members, state government officials expedited the process of land allotment. In 2009, then CM Ashok Chavan had exempted the society from reserving 15% space for a recreational ground – an exemption not allowed by the previous government. In turn, Chavan secured membership for his relatives, according to the CBI.
                                       Truly speaking, the FIR said Chavan had abused his position to favour the society. A case was filed on charges of conspiracy, cheating, forgery and Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI had recorded Chavan’s statement in the case. It had also questioned several people to ascertain the number of civilians who got flats in the society on his orders. They found that there were six such flats. Two were registered in the name of Chavan’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
                                      It cannot be lost on us that in 2014, the former Governor K Sankaranarayanan refused sanctions to prosecute Chavan. The CBI had moved an application in a special court, seeking the approval to remove Chavan’s name from the list of accused, which it rejected. In October 2015, the Joint Director of CBI, Mumbai had sought sanctions to prosecute Chavan under Section 197 (issuing or signing false certificate) of the Criminal Procedure Code, based on fresh material, namely, the Justice JA Patil Commission report and the Bombay High Court’s observations of the criminal revision application. The key accused in the case, former member of Legislative Council Kanhaiyalal Gidwani had died in December 2012.
                                        Before proceeding ahead, let me quickly recapitulate the entire sequence of events in this high profile case. They are as follows –
April 19, 2013: Justice JA Patil Inquiry Commission report was submitted to the government.
August 19, 2013: The CBI forwarded the report to the offices of the SP, ACB and its Mumbai branch.
December 17, 2013: The erstwhile Governor K Sankaranarayan refused sanction to prosecute Ashok Chavan.
December 20, 2013: Justice JA Patil Inquiry Commission was tabled in Legislative Assembly.
January 15, 2014: The CBI submitted an application in the Trial Court, seeking to delete Chavan’s name from the list of accused due to then Governor’s refusal to grant sanction.
January 18, 2014: The Trial Court rejected the CBI application.
May 25, 2014: The CBI filed a criminal revision application before the single Judge of the Bombay High Court for quashing and setting aside the order of the Trial Court.
March 27, 2014: The CBI filed supplementary chargesheet before the Trial Court, stating that Chavan was not involved in benami transctions in respect to the flats of Adarsh society.
June 19, 2014: The CBI filed a second supplementary chargesheet and informed the Trial Court the investigation had been completed.
November 19, 2014: Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal revision application field by the CBI.
December 15, 2014: Chavan field a criminal application recalling theNovember 19 order. The application was dismissed on March 4, 2015 by the Bombay High Court.
April 1, 2015: Chavan filed a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the order dated November 19, 2014 and March 4, 2015.
July 13, 2015: The Supreme Court issued notices to the state government and the CBI on the SLP. The SLP is pending before the Supreme Court for final disposal.
October 8, 2015: The CBI sent fresh proposal (second application) seeking sanction to prosecute Chavan.
                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Bombay High Court held in its judgment categorically that, “It was permissible for the Governor, the sanctioning authority, to review or reconsider the earlier decision of the erstwhile Governor not to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner (Ashok Chavan) in terms of the fresh material which had surfaced after the earlier sanction was refused.” So whatever the Governor did, he was well within his right to do so. There can be no denying or disputing it!
                                       It must be mentioned here that the Bench also added that, “However, the agency (CBI) failed to present any fresh material capable of being converted into evidence that can be substantiated at the time of trial. Therefore, in the absence of fresh material, the sanction cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside.”
                                       For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that in December 2013, the then Maharashtra Governor K Sankaranarayanan had refused sanction for the CBI to initiate proceedings against Chavan. On February 4, 2016, Sankaranarayanan’s successor C Vidyasagar Rao granted sanction to prosecute Chavan for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, and under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Bombay High Court did not agree with the argument made by senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for Chavan, that material to be considered by the sanctioning authority can only be evidence collected by the investigating agency.
                                          To be sure, Justice Ranjit More made it clear that, “The material which is required to be considered by the sanctioning authority is not limited to the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation”. But in the same vein the court also observed that such material must be admissible and capable of being converted to evidence, which can be substantiated at the trial stage. Who can question this?
                                        Needless to say, the Bench of Bombay High Court while pronouncing its judgment held that, “The sanctioning authority is an independent agency, which cannot allow itself to be influenced by any opinion in the case of absence of material. This is the case of absence of material and in such a case earlier order of refusing sanction could not have been reviewed. Is it not a case of non-application of mind and, therefore, the same must be dealt with at the earliest if possible in order to avoid ignominy to a public servant.” Every person has the right to reputation which cannot be denigrated by anyone without substantial proof which has to be approved in a court of law. Who can question this? Chavan contended that the decision to review the December 2013 decision of the then Governor was politically motivated and biased, and there was no additional material warranting review of the decision. It was also argued that the February 2016 order was motivated by change in political circumstances and not by any change in material aspects.
                                        Be it noted, while appearing for the CBI, lawyer Hiten Venegaonkar had earlier told the court that validity of the Governor’s February 2016 order granting sanction to prosecute Chavan in the case can only be tested in the trial court. Senior counsel Amit Desai while appearing for Chavan had argued that the 2016 order was motivated by a change in political circumstances and not by any change in material aspects of the case.
                                        Truth be told, in an earlier affidavit filed by the agency, it said that it approached the Governor for the second time seeking sanction as there was additional and fresh material against Chavan. On October 8, 2015, the CBI sent a fresh proposal in the form of a second application seeking sanction to prosecute Chavan, which was granted by the Governor. The CBI had relied on the report submitted on April 19, 2013, by a two-member judicial commission set up by the government to inquire into the Adarsh scam and a previous order of the court passed in November 2014.
                                             As it turned out, the Bombay High Court while trashing aside the evidence produced held that, “Neither the extract of (the)… Commission report nor the order passed by the Single Judge of the Court are admissible as evidence and, therefore, it cannot be considered. In the absence of fresh material, the Governor has no jurisdiction to review the order of the erstwhile Governor.” The Court held that, “The Commission report is only recommendatory in nature”. The court said that the challenge by the petitioner to Governor’s order can be entertained at the pre-trial stage since the same was passed without there being any fresh material.
                                   Of course, while rejecting former Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan’s petition challenging the trial court’s decision to reject the CBI plea seeking deletion of his name from the list of accused persons, the Bombay High Court that the single Judge merely expressed his tentative opinion “which in our considered opinion cannot constitute fresh material”. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh had claimed that the report of the Commission and certain observations made by the Single Judge were “additional material”. The Bombay High Court, however,  while disagreeing with him said in its judgment that, “The ASG’s arguments cannot be entertained as it would amount to abuse to process of law”.
                                        All in all, this latest judgment by Bombay High Court is a huge relief to Ashok Chavan who was on tenterhooks till the judgment finally came. He too expressed a sigh of relief and said that, “ Truth has prevailed. I have full faith in the judiciary. The governor’s order was politically motivated. The High Court order reaffirms my faith in the judiciary. I am satisfied. The Governor had given the sanction to prosecute me, overruling the decision of his predecessor. With today’s court decision, the Governor’s office has been saved from setting a new precedent.” He is well within his rights to feel happy and vindicated by this Bombay High Court latest judgment!  Well, there can be no denying this!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Why Lawyers Of West UP Strike Every Saturday?

To begin with, it is no ordinary matter that the lawyers of West UP have been on strike every Saturday since May 1981 to protest against denying West UP even a single bench of high court even though the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had recommended the setting up of a high court bench at Agra apart from Nainital and Dehradun which are now in Uttarakhand but not a single bench was created anywhere. On the contrary, Centre took just no time to create a high court bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 1985 on the recommendations of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission as also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal! It was then that the lawyers of West UP decided to set up a Central Action Committee to pursue the most sacred and legitimate demand for a high court bench by fighting for it relentlessly till it reaches its logical conclusion.
                                          It was decided to observe Saturday of every week as a protest day against Centre’s discriminatory policy towards West UP! Today is January 6 and so again the lawyers of all 26 districts of West UP will be on strike and no work will be done in any court of any of these 26 districts of West UP! It has been more than 36 years that lawyers have been doing so but Centre is caring a damn!  
                       In hindsight, 21 December is a date which I can never forget in my life because it was on this black day in 2014 that Dr OP Sharma who is the former President of Meerut Bar and who is held in highest esteem here lost his only son – Tarun Sharma who also was a budding advocate to bullets and that too right in front of his house! He was about to be engaged just after about two to three months! He had pursued his MBA from New Zealand and then chose to follow the worthy footsteps of his father by wearing black coat but his live was abruptly cut short by bullets!
                                   He had everything in him to become like his illustrious father an eminent lawyer and even a Judge of High Court and Supreme Court but alas that was not to happen as bullets snatched the promising life of an intelligent young lawyer!  He too as long as he was alive vociferously and actively supported the legitimate agitation for a high court bench in West UP and always lead from the front in demanding it along with his father! He also had done LLM and even PhD was within his reach if his life was not cut short! Even a senior and eminent criminal lawyer of Meerut Bar – KP Singh too was shot dead by criminals with impunity some years back!
                                   Just recently, a 100 year old woman was raped in Meerut and she died within no time! Most recently a young woman was gang raped in Meerut and she was crying saying that she would have to travel so far to Allahabad to attend court hearings as there is no high court bench in West UP! Why can’t a single high court bench be set up for West UP when both high court at Allahabad and a single bench in Lucknow are both in Eastern UP? I really fail to understand why Centre is so opposed to a bench here just like the earlier past governments in Centre?
                                         In Hapur a small girl aged 6 or 7 years gangraped then people protested in huge numbers in streets! This keeps happening every now and then! It is now treated as new normal! No one is safe in West UP and criminals know that because of huge pending cases it will take decades before the case is finally decided and by the time they are decided they would die a natural death! Gang rape on national highway as happened at Bulandshahr is nothing new! Muzaffarnagar riots in West UP shamed us internationally yet no bench here!
                                    Chief Justice of UP – Dilip Babasaheb rightly pointed out that in Maharashtra woman are so safe that they can go anywhere even in the night but in UP no one is safe even with their family and even on the national highways! Yet see the irony that Maharashtra has 3 high court benches and UP only one and West UP where maximum crime incidents occur has none as both a single bench at Lucknow and high court at Allahabad are in Eastern UP! How can this be ever justified by anyone?   Criminals are ruling the roost and Centre yet firmly reiterates that no bench for West UP! Who is gaining most by Centre’s inaction in setting up a bench here? Criminals and only criminals!
                                   The Union Government has set aside Rs 3,320 crore for building 3143 court halls and 1682 residences for Judges but what about a high court bench in West UP? Why can’t a few crore rupees be spared for setting up a bench anywhere in West UP? Why even 1 district is not considered fit to be granted a bench in whole of West UP?
                                  Why is it ignored that high court itself was initially in West UP at Agra for 3 years before being shifted to Allahabad? Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommendation to create a high court bench in Agra in West UP was most brazenly disregarded even though on its recommendations benches were set up at other places like Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu? Why Centre is not prepared to make any concession on bench issue for West UP? Why many BJP leaders like Laxmikant Vajpayee meet UP CM Yogi Adityanath and demand bench just like others leaders have been doing since independence but still no bench is being created here?
                                    It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that it is the “poorest of the poor” people among the more than 9 crore people of all religions, castes, communities and sexes without any discrimination whatsoever who will stand to gain the maximum if a high court bench is created in West UP! What is the problem then in creating a high court bench for more than 9 crore people living in 26 districts of West UP in 2018 when a high court bench for Lucknow for just 12 districts was created way back in 1948 on July 1? Why even after 70 years is Centre not prepared to create a high court bench in West  UP even though the people are compelled to travel for about 700-800 km whole night all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench here and have to spend huge money for staying, lodging and other expenses?
                                    Why can’t all this be avoided by setting up a high court bench in West UP or by attaching 26 districts of West UP with Delhi High Court which is so nearby? Why the high court and benches of 8 states and above all even Lahore high court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad? Why the lawyers of West UP were compelled to go on strike for 6 months from July to December 2001 demanding the creation of a high court bench in West UP yet no action taken?
                                        Can anyone in Centre even dream as to how the lawyers managed to strike for so long thereby depriving themselves from livelihood for full 6 months in 2001 and how they struggled to meet their daily end yet no bench created? Even in 2014-15, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for 3 to 4 months and even boycotted Lok Adalats and protested whole night outside the court but again Centre just gave empty assurances but nothing materialized on ground! Even in 2009, the lawyers of West UP went on strike and even called a bandh in whole of West UP to protest the decision to not create a single bench here! Even in 2010, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for a month demanding bench.
                              Why this hatred for West UP? Have people of West UP ever opposed the creation of just one bench for whole of UP in Lucknow which is just 150 km away from Allahabad where high court itself is located? If Lucknow is capital then so are Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Dehradun and Thiruvananthapuram among others but there we see neither high court nor bench!   
                                      Why a high court bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people, a high court for just 6 lakh people of Sikkim, for just few lakhs of people of people in Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura as also in many other smaller states? Why a high court now for Uttarakhand since 2000 for just 88 lakh people but not even a bench for more than 9 crore people of West UP? Why such a raw and third rated treatment for them?
                                             Recently, President, PM and Chief Justice of India among others wished the nation on “Constitution Day” and everyone reiterated the dire need to make justice accessible to poor people! But I fail to understand why since last 70 years a single bench has been denied to West UP thus compelling people to travel without any reason so far to Allahabad to get justice? Why when 230th report of Law Commission recommended creation of more high court benches was it not implemented in big states like UP and Bihar which top in the crime rate, murder rate and still UP has just one bench and Bihar has no bench even though Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is from Bihar? Why more than half of pending cases from West UP as acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Commission yet no bench created here?       
                                         Why for a peaceful state like Karnataka 2 more benches were approved in 2012 at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts even though a bench existed at Hubli even though the pending cases are less than 2 lakh and that of UP stands at more than 10 lakh pending cases? Similarly why many other states like Maharashtra and Assam have 3 and 4 benches but for UP which has maximum population more than 22 crore as CM Yogi Adityananth keeps boasting still has least benches in India inspite of having maximum pending cases in high court about 10 lakh and more than 58 lakh in lower courts?
                                          Why maximum MPs, maximum MLAs, maximum villages more than 1 lakh whereas in other states the number is not more than few thousands at the most, maximum districts, maximum crime etc all in UP yet least benches here? Why former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon slams UP as “crime and rape capital of India” still we see least benches here and here too West UP which accounts for maximum crime has least benches? Why even leaders of BJP as also other parties are repeatedly killed by criminals without any fear and crime rate is exceeding so much that even foreign tourists are not spared as we saw a Swiss couple beaten up badly in Agra still no bench here? Why even 100 year old woman is raped by criminals without any fear still no bench here? Gang rape is becoming a routine in West UP yet no bench here!
                               Why Centre does not have pity on more than 9 crore people of West UP in whose support lawyers have been waging agitating for a bench since independence and which has intensified since 1981 when lawyers decided to strike every Saturday and make sure that no lawyer does any work on this day and unitedly demand the creation of a bench here? Why lawyers even started striking many times even on Wednesdays yet Centre took no notice? Why even Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded bench for West UP inside Parliament yet no action?
                                         Why all Union Ministers, MPs and MLAs have unitedly demanded creation of a bench here yet no action? Why for 36 years lawyers of West UP have been striking which should find entry even in Guinness Book of World Records for most period of strike still no bench is being created here? Why in 1955 the then UP CM Sampoornanand had demanded the creation of a bench in Meerut but Centre didn’t agree even though Lucknow had a bench since 1948?
                                             Why this stupidity that the people of Uttarakhand had to travel thousands of kilometers as it had no bench and for more than 50 years were compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad as a single bench was created at Lucknow in 1948? Why bench was not approved for any other place? Why even after 70 years nothing has been done to remedy this grave injustice?
                                      Why inspite of population of West UP being more than any other state except Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise Bihar with 94000 square km is smaller than West UP with 98000 square km still it has no bench? Why Centre fails to appreciate that the population of West UP is more than the population of many states put together and similarly the pending cases also are the highest and more than the cases of several states put together yet not even a bench here leave alone high court? Why the maximum cases of rapes, gang rapes, riots, murders, etc are all from West UP yet not even a high court bench here?
                                    Why inspite of repeated assurances by successive governments in Centre was nothing done to fulfil it? With what face is Centre denying a bench even now when Amit Shah who is BJP national President and Rajnath Singh who is Union Home Minister had repeatedly assured that a bench would be created once NDA comes to power in Centre and in UP?
                                      Why only lip service of “speedy justice”, “justice to be made accessible to the poor” and “justice at doorsteps” if no step is taken to create a bench in West UP where incidents of crime are touching dizzying heights? Why Centre fails to appreciate that lawyers of West UP striking since such a long time for 36 long years every Saturday and regularly holding meetings after meetings to chalk out new strategy to push forward the surge of creating a bench can be resolved only by creating a bench here in any of the 26 districts wherever Centre wishes to do so? Is it such a big deal?
                                       Should it not be done immediately? It is the litigants who will stand to gain and here too it is the “poorest of poor” who will benefit most if a bench is created here and all strikes every Saturdayand sometimes even on Wednesday and sometimes for 6 months in a row will become a matter of past! Does Centre not wishes this to happen?
                                              Why then it refuses to take any action on this score? Why is Centre not taking some action to ensure that this more than 36 year old strike by lawyers of West UP is brought to an end by mutual deliberations, discussions and decisions? Why is decision on this score being postponed inordinately when a bench was created at Lucknow in 1948, in Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts and in many other places even though the law and order situation is worse in West UP as compared to any other place for which benches were approved? Why litigants of 26 districts of West UP are compelled to travel whole night all the way to Allahabad as there is no high court bench here? Why lawyers of West UP are compelled to strike every Saturday since 1981?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

All 2G Scam Accused Acquitted By Special CBI Court

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out straightaway that in a verdict which grabbed the news headlines of all news channels as well as newspapers and magazines, a Special CBI court on December 21, 2017 acquitted all the accused, including former Telecom Minister AA Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi and telecom company owners in the infamous 2G scam. The judgment acquitted them in all three separate cases lodged by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). No doubt, this has come as a big respite for all those who were very anxiously waiting for this verdict to come!
                                         Before proceeding ahead, let me point out here that the case centres around five main allegations: fixation of an arbitrary cut-off date; violation of First Come First Serve policy in issuing Letters of Intent (LoIs); granting of Unified Access Service licences to two ineligible companies and payment of Rs 200 crore bribe to Kalaignar TV Pvt Ltd, promoted by the family of DMK patriarch M Karunanidhi.
      
                                       Terming the CBI chargesheet as a “well choreographed” one, Special Judge OP Saini minced no words in saying pin pointedly that, “The CBI’s evidences were incorrect facts which miserably failed to prove charges against the accused in 2G spectrum case.” Reacting to the acquittal, the CBI and the ED said they would appeal against the judgments. Naturally, they have to appeal because by this judgment it is their reputation that has taken the worst beating because they failed to convince by their arguments that a prima facie case existed against all the accused in the 2G scam!  
                                       To be sure, at the end of his 1,500 pages order, Special CBI Judge Saini said that, “I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution (CBI) has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well choreographed charge sheet.” It must be pointed out here that among the accused, it was Raja who had spent longest period – 15 months in jail during the trial. Kanimozhi was in jail for six months from May 21, 2011 to November 28, 2011. Without a doubt, their face looked cheerful and happy as they have finally got a long-awaited respite. They cannot be faulted because this is what they were looking for.    
                                         To put things in perspective, the fifteen other accused allowed to walk free include former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja’s erstwhile private secretary RK Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Unitech Ltd MD Sanjay Chandra and three top executives of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) – Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair. Saini, whose court came into being on March 14, 2011 for hearing 2G cases exclusively, also, acquitted Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and six others in a separate case arising out of the 2G scam probe. Besides Ruias, Loop Telecom Promoters IP Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan and Vikash Saraf, one of the Essar Group Directors, Loop Telecom Ltd, Loop Mobile (India) Ltd and Essar Teleholding Ltd also were acquitted.
                                          It is noteworthy that the CBI had alleged that there was a loss of Rs 30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of licences for the 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the top court on February 2, 2012. Raja and Kanimozhi  who is daughter of DMK supremo M Karunanidhi were also let off in another case lodged by the ED under the money laundering law arising out of the 2G scam. It is certainly by all accounts a great relief for them!
                               It would be pertinent to mention here that in its chargesheet, the ED had also named DMK supremo M Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal as an accused in the case in which it had alleged that Rs 200 crore was paid by Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL) promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV. Along with them, 16 others, including Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of STPL, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd, film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Sharad Kumar, Director of Kalaignar TV, were also acquitted in the money laundering case.
                                      In hindsight, the Judge did not pay much significance to nearly Rs 200 crore transferred to DMK controlled Kalaignar TV by some of the accused persons and companies. He dismissed the transaction saying none of the accused persons claimed that it  was part of illegal gratification in lieu of alleged favour granted to them by Raja. The Judge also find no illegality in the Raja’s decision to advance the cutoff date for receiving application for grant of licences from October 1, 2007 to September 25.
                                  What also cannot be missed out here is that though the Department of Telecom gave just one hour for the applicants to submit their bids, leading to a chaos and scuffle, Judge Saini justified the decision. He also took no notice of the fact that the one-hour time, without any prior notice was too short for any bidder to procure a bank draft ranging from Rs 200 crore to Rs 500 crore. Brushing aside this damning accusation against Raja, Saini went on to justify the decision, saying, “A non-serious player, who had no financial resources, would block the way of a serious player by claiming early mover advantage. This was the main disadvantage of determining seniority by date of application and as such, it was injurious to the interest of serious players, who had the financial resources to execute the telecom project.”
                                      It also cannot be lost on us that Judge Saini also said that whenever an officer wanted to delay an application, “he would wrap it up in the mantle of first-come first-served, that is, unless earlier application was disposed of, the next will have to wait despite no fault of his own.” He said change of criteria was a facilitating innovation. The Judge also seemed to be impressed by the allegations made by the accused persons against prime witness Aseervadam Achary about his political motives. The court rubbished its testimony saying explicitly that, “He was a man with political testimony and used to think of joining political party.”   
                             Be it noted, Justice OP Saini said that, “Prosecution became highly cautious and guarded as case progressed. It was difficult to find out what the prosecution wanted to prove. The quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident in the end.” It was also held that, “When defence started arguments, they kept filing written submissions contemporaneously with their oral submissions. Not only this, the most painful part is that the Special Public Prosecutor was not ready to sign the written submissions filed by him. What is the use of a document in a court of law, which is not signed by anyone? When questioned as to why the Special Public Prosecutor was filing unsigned written submissions, his reply would be that some defence advocates had also not signed the written submissions.”  
                                      While acquitting A Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and 15 others, including 4 companies, of all the charges in the CBI case, Special Court Judge OP Saini said that, “There is no evidence on the record produced before the court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons relating to fixation of cut-off date, manipulation of first-come, first-served policy, allocation of spectrum to dual technology applicants, ignoring ineligibility of Swan Telecom Pvt Limited (STPL) and Unitech group companies, non-revision of entry fee and transfer of Rs 200 crore to Kalaignar TV (P) Limited as illegal gratification.”
                                       The Judge minced no words in stating quite explicitly that, “Prosecution became highly cautious and guarded as case progressed. It was difficult to find out what the prosecution wanted to prove. The quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident in the end.” In his judgment acquitting all the accused in the 2G spectrum case on December 21, Special Judge OP Saini said that, “Everything happening in the Department of Telecom (DoT) then was known to several other companies – and that there was no secrecy and sanctity. Everything taking place in DoT was conveyed by officials concerned to each company in advance.’
                                  It was also held by the Judge that, “Everything was leaking in DoT. There was no secrecy or sanctity. Who is responsible for it? There is no evidence. In such a situation, no blame can be cast on any of the accused alone. In such a scenario where every official information was being leaked, it cannot be argued that a specific information was conveyed to a specific company by a specific individual, unless there is a definite evidence on this point. It is all in the realm of speculation.”
                                       Furthermore, the Judge also while exonerating Raja and all others of any wrongdoing held that, “It is clear that the Ministry of Finance was not very enthusiastic about its objections regarding pricing of initial spectrum/revision of entry fee. Moreover, [the then] Finance Secretary admitted that after receipt of reply of DoT, they did not pursue their objections seriously. If the Finance Ministry had been serious, and Sh. A Raja was not heeding its query for revision of entry fee, the matter must have been reported to the Cabinet Secretariat or PMO.”
                                      The Judge accepted the defence contention that nowhere had the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recommended revision or indexation of entry fee. Nor had it recommended auction of spectrum. The Judge said: “No witness had deposed that TRAI had recommended revision of entry fee for 2G spectrum, except Nripendra Misra, a former Secretary Telecom, and a former TRAI Chairman. However his view is not supported by the contents of the recommendations.”
                                      The Judge also made it clear in the 1552 page judgment that, “The chargesheet is based mainly on misreading, selective reading, non-reading and out-of-context reading of the official record. Further, it is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness-box.” He also said that, “Proceeds of crime is the foundational fact for the offence of money laundering. Since there are no proceeds of crime, there can be no offence.” He concluded by saying that, “The end result of the above discussion is that, I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well choreographed chargesheet. Accordingly, all accused are entitled to be acquitted and are acquitted.”     
                              Eminent Supreme Court senior lawyer KTS Tulsi while hailing the judgment said that, “A truckload of documents did not have anything on the basis of which it could be said that the ineligibility of Swan or Unitech was ignored or Raja’s link with transfer of Rs 200 crore to Kalaignar could be established. The court accepted the statement of D Subbarao, referred to as a sterling witness, for coming to the conclusion that there was no loss to the exchequer and at best it was only some sacrifice of revenue (for the benefit of poor subscriber). Once the court came to the conclusion that A Raja was not responsible for change of policy with regard to the cut-off date and its change from first come first serve to first paid, there was virtually nothing left in the case. On detailed careful scrutiny of the files, their notings and evidence of the authors of those notings, the court came to the conclusion that there was no interference by any of the accused persons in processing the files. In addition to that, the court found that in fact Raja passed the correct order and that for the change of policy, DS Mathur was responsible. Moreover, the Solicitor General of India had approved the decision with regard to the change of policy of first come first serve from date of application to date of payment. Thus, it was almost impossible for Raja to be held responsible for the same.”
                                  But Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover who was appointed after SPP and senior advocate UU Lalit was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court is not happy with the judgment. He said the trial Judge made silly mistakes in even reading the basic document, the chargesheet. He asked: “If the chargesheet was faulty, why did he frame charges at all? He should have discharged all the accused only on that ground. No trial Judge proceeds with the trial after finding the chargesheet faulty.”
                              He said the trial Judge appeared to have completely missed the tabular chart provided by CBI detailing the transfer of Rs 200 crore by Dynamics, a real estate company to Kusegaon, a fruit and vegetable trader, which had no business. The money was then transferred to Cineyug Films to be finally routed to Kalaignar TV. He said that, “The money trial was vivid and detailed. The motive was clear. The tabular chart provided by CBI during trial proceedings clearly brought out the sequence and motive behind the payments. Yet, the chart does not even get referred to by the trial Judge. This is strange process of accused getting acquitted.”
                                He further added that it was the cardinal duty of the trial Judge to look for facts in the midst of the jungle for documents. He lamented that, “But, the Judge preferred to go by the contradictory and varying explanations given by the defence lawyers on the money trial. The trial Judge made so many mistakes.”
                                All said and done, the decision by the learned Judge has to be accepted by one and all as binding unless and until it is overturned by the higher court. But one thing is quite clear: CBI and ED miserably failed in doing its homework properly. The outcome of the case could have been different if the CBI and ED had been more serious in pursuing the case right from day one!
                                   Severely castigating the CBI for putting “no question” to any witness that a “transaction of Rs 200 crore was a transaction of illegal gratification linked to (UPA telecom minister) A Raja” in the allocation of 2G spectrum in 2008, Special Judge OP Saini acquitted all accused charged with criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and cheating over alleged largescale irregularities in the allocation. Saini pulling up the CBI for “remaining silent” and “filing a well-choreographed chargesheet” and noting that the prosecutor had made it out to be a “case of high political corruption”, said: “I have endeavoured hard to persuade myself to take an expansive and liberal view of the prosecution case. However, in view of deficient, or I may say nil evidence on record, I find myself unimpressed and unmoved, whatever may be nature of the case. High profile nature of a case cannot be used as a ground for holding people guilty without legal evidence.”   
                                           What a pity that the CBI Special Judge OP Saini had to say that, “I may also add that for the last about seven years, on all working days, summer vacation included, I religiously sat in the open court from 10 am to 5 pm, awaiting for someone with some legally admissible evidence in his possession, but all in vain…Not a single soul turned up. This indicates that everybody was going by public perception created by rumour, gossip and speculation. However, public perception has no place in judicial proceedings.”
                             This shows how well prosecution, CBI and ED were prepared in such a high profile case! It is really tragic! In a veiled reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s estimate of a presumptive loss of Rs 176,000 crore to the exchequer in grant of 2G licences, Special Judge OP Saini said categorically that, “Some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels and a huge scam was seen by everyone where there was none. These are only a few examples of how policy issues are strewn around here and there in a disorderly manner. Because of this, it becomes very difficult for outside agencies and institutions to understand issues in proper perspective, leaving scope for controversy.” Centre must spell out all its policy issues clearly so that no such stinging remarks are required to be made by any Judge again as we see most unfortunately here in such a high profile case!       
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.04411111111111111
102

IMA 12 Hour Strike In Pvt Hospitals Against Medical Commission Bill

Coming straight to the core point, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) on January 1 has called for a 12-hour shutdown of all private hospitals in India on January 2 to protest what they call it the “anti-people and anti-patient” National Medical Commission (NMC) Bill, 2017 that seeks to replace the Medical Council of India (MCI). This NMC Bill was presented in the Lok Sabha on December 29. The IMA has 2.77 lakh members, which includes corporate, hospitals, polyclinics and nursing homes across the country.

                                    Dr Avinash Bhondwe who is former President of IMA said that the IMA has announced a nationwide strike between 6 am and 6 pm on January 2 as a mark of protest against the Bill. Dr SS Utture who is President of IMA said that the Bill in its present form was unacceptable and the IMA action committee has declared a black day on January 2.He said that, “This Bill is anti-poor, anti-people, non-representative, undemocratic and anti-federal in character”.
                                        It must be brought out here that the decision to go on a 12-hour strike came after a delegation of the IMA led by President KK Aggarwal and its national President Ravi Wankhede met Union Minister of health and family welfare JP Nadda seeking strict amendments in the Bill that was tabled in the Lok Sabha. Wankhede said that, “IMA strongly opposes this Bill and has no option but to take the issues to our patients and the people. We have called for 12-hour shutdown.” Routine medical services like OPD and elective surgeries across the country will be withdrawn between 6 am and 6 pm.
                                   Terming the Bill as “anti-people and anti-patient”, the IMA in a statement has stated that the Bill purported to eradicate corruption is “designed to open the floodgates of corruption”. IMA, which is not a statutory body, has been vehemently opposing the Bill to set up the NMC ever since it received the Union Cabinet clearance and has demanded key amendments in it. It issued a statement after the delegation met the Health Minister Nadda which stated that, “NMC is an anti-poor Bill with pro-private management clauses. A Bill to regulate the medical education and medical practice without the concurrence of the medical profession will be a disaster.”     
                                       To be sure, the IMA doctors alleged that there are hidden agendas in the proposed Bill. According to Section 26(1)(b) of the Bill, permission to start medical colleges/PG/superspeciality courses or increase seats in MBBS/PG/superspeciality courses will be directly granted by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board directly, which will have three members nominated by the Centre. This will vastly increase Centre’s clout which can misuse whenever it likes as all the three members would be directly nominated by it!
                                       It must be added here that as per Section 26(1)(f) of the Bill, it is provided that MAR Board take such measure, including imposition of monetary penalty, against a medical institution for failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the UGME Board or the PGME Board, as the case may be. The material point for consideration is that all the three monetary penalties are not to be less than one half and not more than ten times the total amount charged by such institution for one full batch of students of undergraduate course or postgraduate course as the case may be. The medical fraternity points out that it yields such wide period and discretionary power to the Board and in the name of charging fine, the permissibility of the period turns out to be substantial before the closure is invoked which means that during the impending period the learner would be taught and trained in compromised ambience resulting in impoverished teaching and it would end up in generation of half-baked health manpower, which would be ill conducive to the healthcare delivery system! They have a valid point!  
                                        Going forward, as per proviso 2, Section 33(1)(d), the NMC can permit a medical professional to perform surgery or practice medicine without qualifying the National Licentiate Examination, in circumstances and period that may be specified by regulations. Utture said such sweeping powers are not only illegal but will give ample scope for manipulation and corruption. This operationally means that without ascertaining the required levels and certification thereto, the Commission would be permitting people to practice surgery and medicine in an open ended manner which tantamounts to legalizing quackery in an operational sense and thus the lives of the people at large would be openly under threat!  Medhavi Tomar who is President of IMA (Meerut unit) lambasted the illogical move saying that, “On one hand, the government plans to abolish exams for foreign graduates despite the fact that they will not be conversant with the infections and diseases of the country, but on the other hand, they want the MBBS students who have already studied for the degree to go through another entrance exam to get themselves a degree. The doctors will also protest against the EXIT exam which the government believes should be undertaken by the MBBS students to finally get their graduation degrees.”
                                   It is noteworthy that the doctors are protesting against the NMC Bill for seeking to allow practitioners of ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homeopathy, to practice modern (allopathy) medicine once they complete a short term “bridge” course.” Dr Shishir Jain who is Joint Secretary, IMA (UP unit) and Finance Secretary, IMA (Meerut unit) said that, “According to current norms, cross-pathy is not allowed, which means a doctor belonging to one category cannot prescribe medicines for another category. For example, an allopathic doctor cannot prescribe homeopathic medicines. But if the NMC Bill is passed, cross-pathy will be allowed, once they complete a six-month course.”
                                  It cannot be lost upon us that many in the medical fraternity are voicing their serious apprehensions over the Health Ministry calling the shots in the days to come and not the doctors! SK Sarin who is former Chairperson of Governors, Medical Council of India minces no words in stating it most unequivocally that, “It is possible that in the near future NMC will become subservient to the health ministry, given that the representation of the medical profession in the new regulatory framework is minimal. The proposed NMC Bill discreetly intends to equate the post-graduate degrees given by MCI or proposed NMC and the National Board of Examination (NBE), which is unjustified too. Standards have been laid down for MCI courses, but not for NBE courses which are often run in private hospitals and nursing homes.”       
                                    Elaborating further, SK Sarin also points out that, “It is well known that doctors in private practice have limited time and exposure to teaching and research. Equating the two degrees would do disservice to the profession. Why would a teacher stay in a government run medical college if he or she can earn five times more and still be designated as a professor? It would be advisable if some serious thought is given before the burial of government-run medical college starts. Similarly, NMC shouldn’t open gates to overseas doctors to regularly practice medicine or perform surgery without qualifying the National Licentiate Examination or induct Ayush colleagues without clearing NEXT. Also, the accreditation and rating function of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) should be out of the ambit of NMC. This was also the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee report in March 2016. MARB’s impartialty is dented if it seeks directions from the commission or government, more so as penalties on non-compliance on educational standards are monetary and regulation of fee structure of up to 40% of seats in private institutes is under its domain.”
                                                  As per Section 55(2) (zl) of the National Medical Commission Bill, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board shall maintain a separate national register including the names of licensed AYUSH practitioners. The names of BAMS and BHMS graduates are already registered with their respective councils and on availing the bridge course they would be incorporated in a separate register maintained by the NMC, resulting in dual registrations with two registering councils, which is neither open nor permissible. Utture lamented that, “The disciplinary jurisdiction on such persons with reference to breach of ethics is not indicated in the proposed Bill as they have dual registrations to their credit. As such these are the floodgates that have been opened up  in terms of the statutory provisions for backdoor entry into medical profession entitling practicing modern medicine.”
                                          The proposed NMC will have 10% elected members (part time) and 90% nominated members. We thus see that it will not have a desired “representative character” with reference to “elected and nominated/appointed members” whereas currently we see that the MCI has 75% elected members and 25% nominated members. Why has the strength of elected members dwindled down to a mere 10% and that too part time whereas the strength of nominated members has been raised hugely from 25% to 90%? Will this not directly increase government’s interference?  
                                        As per Section 10 of the Bill, the functions vested with the Commission under the Act are generic and cosmetic in character. Thereunder it is to exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to decisions of the autonomous boards. As per Section 10(1) of the Bill, Commission would be framing guidelines for determination of fee in respect of such proportion of seats not exceeding 40% in the private medical institutions. This operationally means that the fee regulation would be limited to a maximum of 40% seats in the private medical institutions, which is difficult to comprehend as to why such a ceiling and furthermore it could be anything from nil up to 40% which is quite paradoxical!
                                It also brings into fore as to what would be the chargeable fee for those percentage of seats for which no guidelines would be framed by the Commission.  Does this not open the floodgates of discretion and nepotism? Also, this operationally will mean that the present 15%, which is available to private institutions which includes deemed universities for charging higher fee, would stand augmented to the entire remainder which could be anything between 60% or more which as is blindingly obvious is a real travesty of its type.   
                                  Section 15 of the proposed Bill inserts provision which introduces licentiate examination as mandatory for practicing and doing further post graduate courses after acquiring MBBS qualification. It has been discussed above but it must be added here that the IMA doctors apprehend that the standard and level of licentiate examination would be such that the students belonging to backward communities would find it greatly difficult to clear the same easily and handily! They would thus suffer immensely as they would neither be able to practice nor even take admission in PG courses. The same holds true for those who come from backward areas/states and also from north-east region as well!    
                                   Be it noted, as per Section 29(b) of the Bill, the MAR board is to look into ‘whether adequate faculty and other necessary facilities have been provided to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or would be provided within the time limit specified in the scheme while granting permission to start Medical college or PG courses. Does this not vest the board with the sword of wide discretionary power to accord approval by hypothetically making the assumptive presumption that the stipulated minimum requirements would be completed within due course of time? Will this not impact adversely and prejudice the desired quality of medical education?
                                   What is even more concerning to note is that as per proviso 2 , Section 29(d) of the Bill, the MAR Board can relax the criteria for opening of the medical colleges at its discretion with the previous approval from the Central Government? Will this not ensure that extraneous considerations finally rule the roost in relaxing criteria? Why the regulatory stipulations which are mandatory in nature and binding in character should be opened to concessions or condonation by exercising the route of discretionary authority? Should such route of discretionary authority be allowed? Certainly not!         
                                       As per Section 44(1)(2) of the Bill, although autonomy is widely anticipated to be the hallmark of the NMC Bill, 2017 and the Boards thereunder would be called as “Autonomous Boards” but the ground reality is just the opposite! Centre would be entitled to give directions to the Commission and autonomous boards on all questions of policy which would be binding for the Commission and autonomous boards to comply with! Where is the guarantee that Centre will not misuse it?
                                        Section 45 further strengthens the hands of the Centre by incorporating that Central Government would be within its rights to give such direction it may deem necessary to the State Government for carrying out all or any of the provisions of this Act and State Government shall comply with such directions. Does this not directly undermine the authority of the State Government and clashes directly with the cardinal principles which govern the federal polity as stipulated in the Constitution? Similarly we see how Section 10(1)(f) of the proposed Bill makes it obligatory for State Medical Councils to comply with the directions/policy of the NMC thus bringing it under Centre’s direct thumb!
                                        Last but not the least we see how Section 58(3) has a direct adverse bearing on the employees of the MCI. It brings out that on the dissolution of the MCI the person appointed as Chairman of the MCI and every other person appointed as the member and any officer and other employees of the council and holding office as such immediately before such dissolution shall vacate their respective offices and such chairman and other members shall be entitled to claim compensation not exceeding three months pay and allowances for the premature termination of term of their office or of any contract of service. This clause severely impacts the employees of the council who earlier enjoyed full time salaried status and permanence of employment in character but are now rendered jobless thus leaving them to fend for themselves. Is this not violation of Article 21 read with Article 12 of the Constitution of India because Article 12 vests entitlement to decent life and living as a fundamental right to every citizen and Article 12 clearly mandates a State (in this instant case the MCI) to be an ideal employer?
                                       I can still go on and on. But due to constraint of space I have to now finish. One has to concede that the IMA protests are not without reason. Centre must work out the solution which lies in the problem itself! Centre must take into board all the legitimate concerns of the IMA and work out a new Bill after addressing them properly! Why insist on EXIT exam for Indians alone when Centre is planning so many concessions for foreign students? All such vexed issues must be addressed and they can be if the government is willing and earnest in its endeavours to do so!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Thy will be done

Jesus says, “When you pray, say, ‘…Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven….’”

Luther explains, “What does this mean? The good and gracious will of God is done even without our prayer, but we pray in this petition that it may be done among us also. How is God’s will done? God’s will is done when He breaks and hinders every evil plan and purpose of the devil, the world, and our sinful nature, which do not want us to hallow God’s name or let his kingdom come; and when he strengthens and keeps us firm in his Word and faith until we die. This is his good and gracious will.”

Salvageable adds: Those four words, “Thy will be done,” can be the hardest words for a Christian to pray. We are accustomed to delivering our wish lists to God and advising him how to run the universe. We would like to take God’s promises about prayer and use them to make ourselves the lords and make God our slave. The “name it and claim it” approach to prayer completely ignores our relationship to God. He is our Father; we are his children. Because he loves us, he invites us to ask anything of him. Still, because he loves us, he will grant no prayer that is bad for us or that contradicts his master plan for the redemption of the world.

Jesus prayed this difficult prayer in Gethsemane. He begged his Father for another way to rescue sinners; he did not want to drink the cup of God’s wrath, filled with the poison of sin and evil and rebellion. Even as he named the gift—“Let this cup pass from me”—Jesus refused to claim it. Instead, he prayed, “Not my will, but thine be done.” This example sets the pattern for every Christian as we live our lives and as we speak with our heavenly Father in prayer.

We are nearly half-way through this prayer, and we have not yet said anything about what we want and need. The first three petitions of the prayer focus on God’s name, God’s kingdom, and what God wants. Even secular business strategy understands this approach: talk to the customer about the customer first, and the customer will keep listening when you switch to your product or service. Christians are not cynical when we begin our prayers talking to God about God. In both Old and New Testaments, believers began their prayers talking to God about God. They spoke of things God had done in the past and promises he had made. They reminded God of his nature—not because God needs reminders, but because the rest of us need reminders. The more we speak to God about God, the more we are pulled away from our selfish sinfulness and gathered into the saintly habit of loving God more than we love ourselves.

The words “on earth as it is in heaven” apply to all three petitions prayed thus far. “Hallowed be thy name on earth as it is in heaven.” “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” God’s name is always holy, except where sinners profane the name of God. God’s kingdom follows his rules, except where sinners break his rules. God’s will is done everywhere in creation except where sinners rebel against him and follow their will rather than God’s will. Some people wonder why God allows sin and evil to exist in his otherwise perfect creation. That question is not the mystery, though. The true mystery is why God loves sinners and rebels so much that he sends his Son as a ransom to reclaim them. The only answer to that mystery is found in the will of God—a gracious, merciful and loving will that wants no one to perish but wants to redeem and reclaim all people. Because that is God’s will, Christians cheerfully and trustingly pray the words, “Thy will be done.” J.

Bill To Criminalise Triple Talaq Passed In Lok Sabha

To begin with, it needs no rocket scientist to conclude that the reprehensible practice of instant triple talaq is just a step away from becoming a punishable offence after the Lok Sabha on December 28 passed this historic Bill by voice vote. The Bill expressly stipulates a jail sentence of up to three years for the guilty husband. The Bill draft says that, “Any pronouncement of talaq by a person upon his wife, by words either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever shall be void and illegal.” The Bill makes the declaration of instant triple talaq a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Without a doubt, the Centre by making instant triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat a punishable offence has given a big boon to all those Muslim women who get adversely affected by it and suffer for no fault of theirs!
                                           But the endless woes of women just don’t end by this only! Polygamy or permission given under Muslim man to marry up to 4 wives is another much abused provision wherein it is the woman who is the worst sufferer. As if this is not enough, there is Nikah Halala also whereby if a Muslim man gives divorce to his wife and wants to marry him again then that Muslim woman is supposed to marry some other man, get divorce from him and then again marry her former husband!
                                        Can on earth there be anything more atrocious than this? Still it is valid in India since last 70 years and has continued unabated, unpunished and unchecked! Arif Mohammad Khan who was Union minister in former PM late Rajiv Gandhi’s Cabinet has been most vocal in demanding the abolition of not just instant triple talaq but also nikah halala and polygamy but he had to leave the Cabinet as his voice was not heard on this and he was overruled! Centre must now act on these two evils also just like Nehruji very rightly banned Hindus from marrying more than once even though Lord Krishna had 16,108 wives, Shivaji too had many wives and it was very common for Hindus to marry as many as they liked with no one to stop them from marrying them as many times as they wanted! Hindus should never forget Nehruji for this great favour that he did to them because of which the population also has come under control and now similarly Modiji should also have the guts like Nehruji to do a favour on Muslims also by similarly abolishing these reprehensible practices which are retrograde and violate the dignity of woman in the most rash manner! No doubt, a good beginning has been made in this direction!
                                          It is imperative to mention here that the Lok Sabha passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill by voice vote after rejecting a string of amendments moved by opposition members. The Congress said it supported the Bill but wanted it to be scrutinized by the Standing Committee of Parliament but this demand was rejected by the Chair. MPs from the RJD, AIMIM, BJD, AIADMK and All India Muslim League opposed the Bill and called it arbitrary in nature and a faulty proposal. Eminent Union Minister MJ Akbar who is himself a Muslim said that, “The law will give a big blow to those who want to keep women under the constant ‘fear and terror’ in the name of talaq”.
                                        It must be mentioned here that the Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had invoked the Shah Bano case at the BJP’s Parliamentary Party meeting on December 28 and had said that unlike Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi would not bow down on triple talaq. He briefed the BJP MPs of the triple talaq legislation. He said that, “Rajiv Gandhi bowed down to the lobbies and left Shah Bano mid-way. Our PM will not let any injustice done to Muslim women.” What Prasad has said is truly laudable but I will again reiterate that it must now outlaw nikah halala also and polygamy also because such derogatory practices cannot be justified under any circumstances!
                                                 Let me mince no words in saying this most directly: If polygamy is banned even among Muslims, the dangerous trend of Hindus and people from other religions converting to Muslims just for getting their second marriage validated would be checked hundred percent! Thus two birds will be killed with one stone! The dangerous menace of “Love Jihad” can also be effectively checked by this!
                                               But the moot question here is: Will Centre show the requisite courage to act in this direction by acting similarly as it has done in the case of instant talaq or will it succumb in front of those who are big leaders but who never want the Muslim woman to truly become independent which alone explain why they oppose tooth and nail any type of changes in Muslim laws and this includes derogatory practices also like nikah halala and polygamy? Only time will tell! But I am still optimistic that Centre would place national interests first and take the right decision accordingly! Banning polygamy will not just check exploitation of women, conversion of people from their own religion to Islam just for marrying more wives than one but will also go a lot ahead in checking the population of our country which right now is growing by leaps and bounds and it is widely anticipated that if we go by this rate we would soon leave even China behind in next few years to become the world’s most populated country!
                                           To put things in perspective, while calling it a historic step, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the Bill – The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017 – will act as a deterrent since there have been 100 cases of triple talaq even after the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in August this year. We all know that in the landmark case of Shayara Bano v Union of India, the Supreme Court has outlawed instant triple talaq and very rightly so! Who can question this?
                                           Going forward, Prasad made it a point to further mention that while 22 Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh have regulated instant triple talaq, there was no effective law in India. He further went on to say that, “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill seeks to ensure the larger constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and help sub-serve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment.” Very rightly said!
                                It must be mentioned here that Clause 3 stipulates that instant triple talaq in any form shall be void and illegal. Clause 4 mentions that husband giving triple talaq to serve a jail term of up to three years and pay fine. A Sampath of CPM asked that, “Why is there no mention of the maximum quantum of fine in the Bill?” This is because the Judge has then the discretion to impose fine seeing the financial condition of Muslim men! Clause 5 envisages that the married Muslim woman shall be entitled to alimony. Sushmita Dev of Congress on this asked that, “Who will give the maintenance if the husband goes to jail?” All these questions must be addressed before it is finally made a law! The amount of the allowance will be decided by a first class Magistrate.
                                            Shaista Amber who is All India Muslim Woman Personal Law Board President hailed the judgment saying that, “I thank Allah, the government, the Supreme Court, Law Commission and all MPs”. Taking a dig at those opposing the Bill, Shaista questioned that, “What had they done for our rights?” Shayara Bano who led the sacred fight to ban instant triple talaq too expressed happiness but added a rider that, “After triple talaq, even other practices such as polygamy and nikah halala should be banned in our society. The way in which women are tortured in the name of these ill-practices should be stopped”.
                                            Shayara Bano also reiterated that, “I will once again file a petition to ban polygamy and nikah halala in  the top court. I will continue my fight against ill-practices among the Muslim community. These types of practices should be abolished from the Indian society for the development of our country.” After she filed the petition against instant triple talaq, it must be mentioned that thousands of Muslim women across the country came together demanding that triple talaq be abolished. Shayara has shown that any person can change the system if there is determination and will power to do so even if he/she comes from an ordinary family with a humble background! Kudos to her as she deserves all the laurels for prompting even the Supreme Court and Centre to act positively in this regard!
                                                   Eminent jurist and former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee very rightly appealed not to bring religion into the triple talaq Bill. He elegantly said that, “It’s a very good move that requires legislation. Don’t bring religion into it as the whole thrust of the legislation is to ensure gender equality and to see women are not treated in an arbitrary manner.” He also said that the Bill was being opposed for the vested interests.
                                           He further added that the legislation would ensure gender equality. All of us must firmly believe in what Sorabjee has said and seriously adhere to what he has said as he is one of the brightest gem and jurist that India has known and has mentored even many other eminent jurists like Harish Salve who worked with him from 1980 to 1986! It is certainly a revolutionary step in the right direction but still all efforts must be made to cure it of all shortcomings before it is finally made into a law!
                                             Hope and pray earnestly that it is soon also cleared by the Rajya Sabha and made into a law so that Muslim women can be saved from this worst curse which in one second destroys her whole life with no way left for her to go! It is high time and now all efforts must be made to outlaw even other derogatory practices like nikah halala and polygamy as demanded by Shayara Bano, Arif Mohammad Khan and others which must be immediately thrown out into the dustbin of history by repealing it once and for all!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

In A First Junior Advocates To Get Rs 3000 Per Month Stipend

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin at the beginning itself by first and foremost pointing out that in what could be considered as a very great landmark step taken for the benefit of fresh law graduates who just step into the legal profession as a lawyer, the Puducherry government has announced a stipend of Rs 3,000 per month for junior advocates for a period of three years or till they start practicing independently, whichever is earlier. This shall certainly bring a big smile in the face of all those who stand to gain by this landmark step. It is a truly laudable step which has to be appreciated for giving young lawyers the stipend of Rs 3000 per month so that they don’t have to look to their parents for financial help and undoubtedly this shall boost their self-confidence to a big level!  
                                   It merits no reiteration that every government of every state must emulate what a Union Territory which is not even a state has chosen to do! This is a very small step that will certainly go a long way in attracting more and more bright students into the legal profession! There is no valid reason as to why all other State governments all over India should not emulate what Puducherry has done now for the benefit of junior advocates!
                                 While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that an official communication which was sent by N Murugavel who is Undersecretary (Law) to the President of the Puducherry Bar Association said that the Chief Minister V Narayanasamy has allotted funds from the Chief Minister’s relief fund to cover the stipend. When such a small Union Territory can take such a landmark step by which so many junior advocates will benefit then why can’t bigger states who have much more money in their purse can’t allocate just Rs 3,000 per individual like Puducherry if not more so that more and more brighter talent is attracted to the legal profession and the junior lawyers don’t have to pinch their hands even to meet their daily expenses? It is high time and now bigger states too must follow the worthy footsteps of Puducherry and act in the supreme interests of junior advocates!
                                           It must not be lost on all states that in a first Puducherry has taken a very bold and landmark decision of giving junior advocates Rs 3,000 per month stipend! They too must not themselves lag behind and waste no time to do what Puducherry has done in this regard! There is no harm in doing or rather imitating other if that thing which has been done is laudable and worthy enough to be followed by others!
                                          It has to be conceded with grace that what the Chief Minister of a Union Territory – V Narayanasamy has done must be emulated by Chief Ministers of not just Union Territory or small states alone but also equally by bigger states as it is a very courageous decision which is bound to benefit many young and junior advocates who have just stepped into the legal profession and especially those who come from a weak financial background! I would rather go one step ahead and say that even those who come from good financial background would also feel more confident and happy if they get Rs 3000 per month stipend and this will imbue them further to work more harder to earn more and become independent in financial terms which is bound to groom their overall personality and make them more self-reliant! There can be no denying or disputing it!   
                                      For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Puducherry government has also very rightly prescribed the eligibility criteria for getting the stipend. Those junior advocates who regularly attend free legal aid camps organized by the Legal Services Authority of the Union Territory of Puducherry and conduct the cases allotted to them by the legal aid committee and respective courts will be eligible to apply for the stipend. All other States must also emulate the most worthy example of Puducherry in this regard!
                                       To put things in perspective, there are other terms and conditions also that have been laid down which include assisting the courts as a researcher, attending the chamber of senior advocates with whom they are attached, obtaining regular service certificates every three months from the President or Secretary of the Puducherry Bar Association and assisting the government pleader or public prosecutor or others at least! These are all valid and rational conditions which shall go a long way in making a fresher and junior advocate more experienced and more capable to deal with the complex court situations which arises from case to case! So they cannot be questioned nor can their utility be questioned!    
                                         It must be highlighted here that while speaking to reporters, the Chief Minister V Narayanasamy said there was a plea from the Puducherry State Bar Association that young lawyers entering the profession be paid monthly assistance. He said that, “Conceding the plea, the government has now evolved a scheme to provide Rs 3000 every month for young advocates. This assistance would be available to the new entrants for a period of three years to start with.” He also made it clear that, “The assistance is to enable the young lawyers to stabilize themselves in the profession.” He further added that initially the government would earmark from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, a sum of Rs 9 lakhs to the Welfare Fund of advocates here.
                                          All said and done, what the Puducherry government has done under the able stewardship of Chief Minister V Narayanasamy is truly laudable. He has taken a very bold initiative which must be truly applauded by one and all! It must be emulated by every State Government and Union Territories all across the country.
                                         Needless to say, junior advocates are also young officers of the court and to pay them so much that they don’t have to depend on others is imperative!  It is unquestionable that this is what the Puducherry government led by Chief Minister V Narayanasamy has done so rightly! Who can deny this?
                                         It is a truly laudable step in the right direction to make them self-reliant especially in their initial years! This would make sure that young advocates are inspired to give in their very best to the profession right from day one without worrying much from the financial angle in the initial few years. They will be better trained as compared to those who don’t get anything and therefore lose interest in the legal profession of advocacy right from their formative years and thus get diverted into other professions! Who can deny this?
                                                 I have seen for myself that how not just lawyers in district courts and high courts but also in Supreme Court have shifted to other professions which includes teaching because there you immediately start getting good salary but in courts one has to wait for many years and still the earning is far below adequate! Who can deny this? I am ready to confront them!
                                          Even those lawyers who work with senior and eminent lawyers are hardly paid much except for a very few all across India and this explains why even young lawyers with exceptionally brilliant background but not having any relation in the legal profession tend to immediately shift to other fields like teaching etc or opt to appear in the judicial services exam and become a Judge where they start getting a decent salary very early in their life! This is a very dangerous trend that can never be good for the long term interests of judiciary and lawyering and must be checked immediately if the best talent is to be retained in the legal profession of lawyering and for this to happen it is imperative that the other Chief Ministers should also try and emulate what V Narayanasamy has attempted recently even though on a small scale which is truly laudable and worth emulating by all states and Union Territories!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Insult Of Jadhav’s Family Is Insult Of India

Coming straight to the key point, I fully agree with senior and eminent Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad that, “Insult of Jadhav’s family is insult of more than 130 crore Indians”. The moot question is: Why do our leaders of all parties speak strong language against Pakistan but never take any tough action against them? How long we will keep drinking poison like Lord Shiv and keep tolerating everything cheerfully? We are not Lord Shiv nor can we ever dare to even dream to become like him! Also, we should not forget that Lord Shiv certainly drank poison but he never tolerated insult and had not spared even the father of his consort Parvati when he insulted him publicly!
                                           But leaders of India are crossing all tolerable limits. They may shout against Pakistan, they may scream against Pakistan, they may demand terming Pakistan as Aatankistan as they did just recently in UN but when it comes to taking action themselves directly on the ground, they are just not prepared to do anything substantial! The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan was given unilaterally to them in 1996 even though they kept sending terrorists to India most actively since 1989 onwards and forced lakhs of Kashmiri Pandits and all those Muslim families who helped them to leave Kashmir and live like a refugee in their own country!
                                          Dr BR Ambedkar never favoured special status for Jammu and Kashmir which Jawaharlal Nehru did which was his worst blunder but what is more tragic is that no PM till now has ever dared to set right that historical blunder. Article 370 was not there in original Constitution but inserted later after Ambedkar’s death! Why is it there still in Constitution?
                                When we treat Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India then why have we not fully and finally merged it with India? Why as former CJI JS Khehar rightly pointed has separate flag, separate Constitution and separate laws when we treat as an integral part of India? This open sham must end now once and for all if we are really serious in treating as Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India!
                                      Coming back to the main issue, Kulbhushan Jadhav who was wrongly kidnapped from Iran border by Taliban and later sold to Pakistan’s ISI was termed a terrorist and when his mother and wife were keen to meet him, they were made to wait for nearly two years and then humiliated in the most shameful manner! Which self-respecting country will tolerate this quietly? Why India keeps taking things lying down? Why Pakistanis are given a VVIP treatment in India and allowed to dine and enjoy with whomever they like? Is this really fair? Yet shamelessly our politicians allow this to happen most brazenly right under our very nose!
                                         It is not Sanjeev Sirohi but Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar who disclosed to media after Kulbhushan Jadhav and his wife and mother – Chetna and Avanti returned to India along with Indian diplomat JP Singh who had accompanied them to meet Jadhav that, “Under the pretext of security precautions, the cultural and religious sensibilities of family members were disregarded. This included removal of mangalsutra, bangles and bindi, as well as a change in attire that was not warranted by security. For some inexplicable reason, despite her repeated requests, Chetana’s shoes were not returned to her after the meeting. We would caution against any mischievous intent in this regard.”
                                           What a national disgrace! If this thing were to happen with PM Modi’s family members or with even some Minister’s family members, would they still have given such muted response? Why do we tolerate so much everything quietly? Why can’t we pay back Pakistan in the same coin? This is the main reason why we are repeatedly subject to such insult time and again!
                                        Israel supports us but still we vote against them and reiterate our solidarity with Palestine! But see what Palestine does to us? Their leaders openly share platform with dreaded terror leaders like Hafiz Saeed who is leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba and reiterate their full support for Jammu and Kashmir’s integration with Pakistan at all cost and under all circumstances! Leaders like Farooq Abdullah don’t say a word when such shameful incidents happen but are quick to react otherwise at the drop of a hat and keep warning India against any measure to integrate them with India!
                                          Jadhav’s mother revealed that Jadhav kept on making tutored statement when she enquired him about the injuries. It was further revealed that Jadhav and his family were not allowed to speak in Marathi. Besides, the accompanying Indian diplomat Deputy High Commissioner JP Singh was initially separated from family members who were taken to the meeting without informing him. The Pakistani press was allowed to approach the family members closely, harass and hurl false accusations about Kulbhushan Jadhav. Kulbhushan and his mother were separated by a glass partition throughout the meeting.
                                      Indian leaders are squarely responsible for this! Why they lavishly throw dinners and parties for Pakistani leaders and invaders like General Musharraf who should not be allowed even an entry to India? Why they care a damn even when our soldiers are getting killed daily while fighting against their soldiers and terrorists trained and armed by their army and ISI?    
                                         At the very least, why can’t Centre revoke the unilateral MFN status conferred to them since 1996 thus disregarding the supreme sacrifices of our soldiers? Why can’t Centre declare Pakistan as a terror state instead of just demanding it once in a year in a UN platform or any other platform? Why can’t Centre expel all unnecessary Pakistani former diplomats fishing in troubled waters in India like Mehmood Kasuri?
                                          Why can’t Centre nuke all relations with Pakistan till they start behaving with us properly? Why can’t Centre revoke all benefits wrongly given to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty agreement signed with them in 1960? Why can’t Centre expel all Pakistani nationals from India like Kuwait did as they foment trouble and terror wherever they go?
                                             It is because politicians and not Pakistan are the real danger to India because they are ready to tolerate everything and compromise on everything! Justice Markandey Katju termed Pakistan and Bangladesh as fake countries who were created by Indian politicians. Jinnah himself said to a boy long time back “No my boy, you are an Indian first and then a Muslim!” The creation of Pakistan was an act of treachery and we are still suffering because of it! Even Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who was a Pakhtoonistan leader said, “What is this Nehru? You have made me a foreigner in my own country? What sense does it make?”
                                       Seventy years down the lane nothing has changed. Still politicians keep appeasing separatists and keep appointing interlocutors to engage them even as they collude with Pakistan and regularly get funds from them to bleed India and cut it by a thousand wounds! What difference does it make to our politicians?
                                        What an unbeatable irony that those who are so senior politicians with exceptional academic background and even coming from royal families and served themselves in elite services hail Pakistan invader Gen Musharraf as “Musharraf Sahab” and terror leader like Hafiz Saeed as “Hafiz Sahab”! Are they peons and chaprasis of Musharraf and Hafiz or are they engaged as servants by them? If not then why do they indulge in so much of servility? Are they getting some pay from them? Then why so much of chamchagiri?
                                   Kulbhushan Jadhav is an ex servicemen and an officer who served in the Navy! Why India tolerates his insult so quietly? India must react very strongly and our politicians must start behaving themselves if India is to gain its pride and prestige in the international forum!
                                       But most shockingly politicians never learn anything even after facing repeated terror attacks from Pakistan and this alone explains why many feel that, “Fear politicians and not Pakistan! What is Pakistan? Nothing but a fake country created by politicians of India in collusion with England who formerly ruled over us!”
                                      Justice Markandey Katju went to the extent of calling politicians as “rogues and scoundrels”. It is high time and politicians must salvage their ever sinking reputation by really acting tough against Pakistan as Subramanium Swamy advocates but he is not listened to even in his own party that is BJP! The day our politicians start acting tough against Pakistan it dare not take us for granted! It will start to behave itself! But the moot question is: When will politicians make that day to come? It is all in their hands alone!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkehra,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Thy Kingdom come

Jesus says, “When you pray, say ‘…Thy Kingdom come….’”

Luther explains, “What does this mean? The kingdom of God certainly comes by itself without our prayer, but we pray in this petition that it may come to us also. How does God’s kingdom come? God’s kingdom comes when our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead godly lives here in time and there in eternity.”

Salvageable adds: Scholars speak sometimes of the three kingdoms of God, although they do not intend to say that these are distinct kingdoms. No, they overlap, and a person can be part of more than one of God’s kingdoms. They are called the kingdom of power, the kingdom of grace, and the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of power is creation, over which Jesus rules right now. The kingdom of grace is the Church, including saints in Paradise with Jesus and believers still living on the earth. The kingdom of glory is the coming new creation, in which all things will be perfected, all evil will be removed, and all the saints will live with Jesus forever. They will be royalty because of their family relationship to the King.

We do not need to pray that the kingdom of power will come. Creation already is here. We pray about that kingdom, though, when we pray for daily bread.

We pray for the kingdom of grace—for the Church. We pray for pastors and other church leaders, that God would keep them faithful and would work through their ministries. We pray for missionaries spreading the good news about Jesus. We pray for people we love, especially those who seem not to believe in Jesus right now. We pray that the kingdom of grace would come to more people so they can be redeemed and can enter the kingdom of grace and await eternal life in the kingdom of glory. The Lord’s Prayer is a missionary prayer.

At the same time, we are praying for ourselves. We pray that we would continue to mature in the faith—as a famous song from Godspell says, to see God more clearly, follow him more nearly, and love him more dearly. On the one hand, there are not different levels of faith. The faith of every Christian is identical, because it is faith in the same Savior, the same Lord, and the same promises. The Christian life is easier, though, for believers who have stopped measuring themselves, who have put their full trust in the Lord, and who are being transformed into the image of Christ, loving God and neighbors according to the example of Christ and by his strength.

Even as we pray for the kingdom of grace, we also pray for the coming of the kingdom of glory: “Maranatha—come, Lord Jesus!” We look forward to the Day when we see Jesus coming in the clouds, bringing with him all the saints of Paradise, raising all the dead, and inaugurating the new creation. We pray for that Day when all sorrows and sufferings will cease, when sin and evil will no longer exist, and when death will no longer be an end to life. That Day is already guaranteed through the redemption of Christ. By his life and death and resurrection, he has conquered sin, death, and evil. By his life, death, and resurrection, he shares his victory with us. Therefore, we do not fear the Day of the Lord. We look forward to it with hope and excitement, and we pray for its coming. Yet it has been delayed for the sake of the work of the kingdom of grace. There are yet more people—at least one more person—who will come to faith and enter the kingdom of grace before it all becomes the kingdom of glory.  J.

Hallowed be thy name

Jesus says, “When you pray, say ‘…Hallowed be thy name….’”

Luther explains, “What does this mean? God’s name is certainly holy in itself, but we pray in this petition that it may be kept holy among us also. How is God’s name kept holy? God’s name is kept holy when the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, and we, as the children of God, also lead holy lives according to it. Help us to do this, dear Father in heaven! But anyone who teaches or lives contrary to God’s Word profanes the name of God among us. Protect us from this, heavenly Father!”

Salvageable adds: God’s name includes everything that tells us about God. His name starts with the labels we use for him: God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Savior, Redeemer, and so on. But God’s name can also refer to the Bible, the Church, the cross, and anything else that calls God to mind. God’s name is represented by anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian.

God’s name is so important that God protects it in the Ten Commandments, telling his people not to misuse his name. His name is misused when it is spoken carelessly, as punctuation, rather than as a prayer addressed to him or as a statement about him. It is misused whenever people try to use it magically, treating the cross as a good-luck charm or treating prayer as an incantation that gives the one praying control over God. God’s name is misused whenever it is invoked in an effort to deceive other people, whether perjury (promising by God’s name to speak the truth, and then lying) or false promises (God wants you to send me one hundred dollars, and he promises you greater prosperity in return when you do so).

Of course God’s name is always holy. Anything that belongs to God is holy. God does not require our prayers to preserve the holiness of his name. But our prayers remind us that God’s name is holy. As Luther indicates, when we pray to God about the holiness of his name, we pray that his name would be holy among us. Instead of bringing shame to the name of God by our deceit, by our selfishness, and by our cold lack of love for our neighbors, we want the name of God to be honored by our neighbors when they see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16).

Children sometimes misunderstand the words of the prayer and tell God that his name is hollow. When people pray this prayer and then go and do what they want rather than doing what God wants, they make his name hollow. As Luther prays, “Protect us from this, heavenly Father!” As Christians, may we bring glory rather than shame to the name of Christ our Lord. J.